North Carolina Lawsuit Filed to Challenge Petition Requirements for Independent Candidates

Posted on by August 30, 2019
2

On August 30, a federal lawsuit was filed against certain North Carolina ballot access laws that affect independent candidates. The plaintiffs are Kyle Kopitke, an independent running for president; and Greg Buscemi, an independent candidate for U.S. House. Kopitke v Bell, e.d., 7:19cv-164-D.

The lawsuit challenges the February petition deadlines for independent candidates, which has existed since early 2017. It also challenges the number of signatures, both for statewide independent candidates and candidates for U.S. House. Statewide independents need 70,000 signatures, and U.S. House independents need approximately 15,000.

A U.S. District Court in North Carolina already ruled in 2004 that the state cannot require more signatures for statewide independents than for newly-qualifying parties. After the 2004 decision, DeLaney v Bartlett, the state equalized the statewide independent and new party petitions. But then in late 2017 they sharply reduced the number of signatures for new parties, so that the two requirements were again different. New parties need 11,778 signatures.

The lawsuit also challenges the requirement that write-in candidates must file a petition in order to have their write-ins counted.

Colorado Referendum Petition to Repeal National Popular Vote Has Enough Valid Signatures

Posted on by August 29, 2019
22

The Colorado referendum petition to repeal the National Popular Vote law in Colorado has enough signatures. See this story. It will be on the November 2020 ballot. This will be the first time that voters of any state have voted on the plan.

The Colorado Republican Party contributed some of the money used to pay the petitioners. Thanks to a commenter for the link.

Three Amici Curiae Briefs Filed Against Alaska Campaign Contribution Limits

Posted on by August 29, 2019
1

Three amici curiae briefs have been filed in the U.S. Supreme Court in Thompson v Hebdon, 19-122. The issues are Alaska’s $500 limit on individual contributions to candidates for state office, and the strict limit on how much money a candidate may receive from individuals who don’t live in Alaska.

Here is the amicus of Cato Institute and the Institute for Justice. It is concerned solely with the $500 limit.

Here is the amicus of the Institute for Free Speech, which is also entirely concerned with the $500 limit, and argues that the Supreme Court precedents on contribution limits are hopelessly inadequate and should be re-evaluated.

Here is the brief of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which is also concerned with the $500 limit, but argues that the lower courts in this case improperly considered public opinion polling when they upheld the Alaska limits. The brief argues forcefully that the courts should not adjudicate First Amendment cases based on whether the restriction is popular.

Rocky De La Fuente’s Lawsuit on Presidential Tax Returns Transferred to Federal Court in Sacramento

Posted on by August 29, 2019
6

Rocky De La Fuente’s federal lawsuit against the new California law on presidential candidate tax returns and primary ballot access has been transferred from the federal court in San Diego (the southern district) to the federal court in Sacramento (the eastern district). Therefore, all the five federal cases against the new law are assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England. The hearing is September 19. The case number for De La Fuente v Padilla is now 2:19cv-1659.

The state has asked permisison to file a single brief that will relate to all five cases. The state also wants permission to exceed the normal length for briefs of this type. It is difficult to imagine a single brief, because the cases differ in some ways. They include two candidates, President Donald Trump and De La Fuente, who are not situated identically. Also they include two cases that have no candidate-plaintiffs, just voter-plaintiffs. And they include a case filed by the Republican National Committee, which has issues of freedom of association that are not present in the other cases.