U.S. Supreme Court Remands Alaska Campaign Contribution Case Back to Ninth Circuit

Posted on by November 25, 2019
4

On November 25, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded Thompson v Hebdon, 19-122, back to the Ninth Circuit, and instructed the Ninth Circuit to re-write the decision.  The case concerns Alaska’s $500 limit on how much an individual may give to a candidate for state office.  The Ninth Circuit had upheld that limit, and also upheld Alaska’s law that makes it very difficult for an out-of-state individual to give any donation at all.

The U.S. Supreme Court remand is unsigned.  It says that the Ninth Circuit decision erroneously had said that a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision from Vermont, Randall v Sorrell, is not a binding precedent because no one opinion in that case was signed by a majority of the justices.  But the U.S. Supreme Court says the Ninth Circuit should have considered Randall to be a binding precedent.  Randall struck down limits of $400.  It is now somewhat likely that on remand, the Ninth Circuit will strike down the Alaska limits.

A side effect of the November 25 action is to cast doubt on the campaign finance provisions of the Alaska initiative that also imposes a top-four system.

For Third Time, U.S. Supreme Court Doesn’t Decide Whether to Hear Delaware Ban on Independents Becoming a State Court Judge

Posted on by November 25, 2019
2

On November 25, the U.S. Supreme Court revealed that it had made no decision on whether to hear Carney v Adams, 19-309 at its November 22 conference.  That makes three conferences in a row in which the court has considered the case, but made no decision.

The Third Circuit had invalidated a Delaware constitutional provision, saying on most state courts, no one may be appointed to a judicial position unless the person is a member of a party that has registration of at least 5% of the state total.  In the entire history of Delaware’s voter registration, no party other than the Democratic or Republican Parties has ever met that standard.

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Libertarian Party Bequest Case

Posted on by November 25, 2019
9

On November 25, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Libertarian National Committee v Federal Election Commission, 19-234.  This is the case in which the lower court said it is constitutional to prevent a party from receiving a large bequest as soon as probate is finished.  Instead, the government requires that the party receive the money in small chunks every year, so that it might take a decade or longer for the party to receive all the money.  The supposed rationale for this policy is that the deceased person might have bribed the party before he died.  In this case, however, that would have been impossible, because the donor did not tell the Libertarian Party about his will.

News Story on Independence Party of New York

Posted on by November 24, 2019
5

The Rochester City Newspaper has this critical story about the Independence Party.  It is accurate, but incomplete.  It would have been better if it had explained the history of the party.  It was formed in 1994 by the type of people who were supportive of Ross Perot’s 1992 independent presidential candidacy.  When Perot founded the national Reform Party in 1995, the New York Independence Party functioned as the New York state affiliate of the Reform Party.  However, it never named itself the Reform Party; it kept the name “Independence”.

In presidential elections, it has continued to be mostly independent of the major parties.  In 2000 it nominated John Hagelin (Natural Law Party nominee) for president.  In 2004 it nominated Ralph Nader.  In 2008 it nominated John McCain, the only time the party ever nominated a major party presidential nominee.  In 2012 it did not nominate anyone for president.  In 2016 it nominated Gary Johnson for president.

New York Post Editorial Severely Criticizes the Commission on Public Funding

Posted on by November 24, 2019
7

This New York Post editorial blasts the New York Commission on Public Funding for considering a plan to toughen the definition of “political party”.  The Post doesn’t like the Working Families Party, but still condemns the plan as a ploy to eliminate it.  The Post also says it is a conflict of interest for the state chair of the Democratic Party to be a member of the commisison.

The editorial would be better if it mentioned that the proposal would eliminate the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, which are the two leading nationally-organized third parties in the United States.