Opponents of Seattle’s Voucher System of Public Funding of Campaigns Turn to U.S. Supreme Court

Posted on by September 30, 2019
1

On July 11, 2019, the Washington State Supreme Court upheld Seattle’s voucher-system of public funding of candidates for city council. Elster v City of Seattle, 96660-5. Here is the opinion, which is short. Seattle gives every registered voter a voucher, which can be used by the voter to help any candidate. The voucher is worth $25. Some taxpayers sued, saying the system violates their First Amendment rights, because their tax money goes to some candidates whom those taxpayers disagree with. But the Washington Supreme Court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had upheld public funding paid for by tax dollars in 1976 in Buckley v Valeo.

The Seattle plaintiffs are preparing a cert petition to the U.S. Supreme Court in this case. It would have been due October 9, but they have obtained permission for a later deadline, and the petition is now due November 8, 2019. 19A345.

New York State Courts Uphold Partial Limitation on Fusion

Posted on by October 2, 2019
3

Although New York state is famous for allowing fusion, the state does have one limitation. Except for Governor and state legislature, if an unqualified party petitions for a particular candidate who is also the nominee of one or several qualified parties, the unqualified party doesn’t get a separate space on the ballot for its nominee. Instead the name of the unqualified party is added to the same spot on the ballot that is being used by one of the qualified parties.

The Upstate Jobs Party, which is not a qualified party, sued in August to overturn that law, but on September 3 the Onondaga County Supreme Court upheld the law, and on September 26 the Appellate Division agreed with the lower court.

In the State Supreme Court (which is the lower court), the case was Upstate Jobs Party v Czarny 7058/2019. In the Appellate Division it is 19-01633.

The lawsuit concerned the November 2019 race for County Executive of Onondaga County. There are two candidates. Candidate John Ryan McMahon, one of the plaintiffs, is the nominee of the Republican, Conservative, Libertarian, Independence, and Upstate Jobs Party. His name will be on the ballot four times. If he had won the lawsuit, his name would have been on the ballot five times. But because he lost the lawsuit, the space on the ballot for the Independence Party nomination will also carry the name of the Upstate Jobs Party.

Independence Party activists were part of the lawsuit, and they objected to having their space on the ballot combined with the Upstate Jobs space. One voter-plaintiff said she is an Independence Party supporter, but she doesn’t like the Upstate Jobs Party, so that she couldn’t in good conscience vote for McMahon because her vote would then appear to be supporting the Upstate Jobs Party as well. Here is the Supreme Court seven-page opinion. Thanks to Michael Thompson for the link.

Text of Congressional Ranked Choice Voting is Now Available on Congressional Web Page

Posted on by September 28, 2019
8

HR 4464, the bill in the U.S. House to require use of ranked choice voting for all congressional primaries and elections, can now be read at the web page for Congress. Thanks to Thomas Jones for this news. See here.

If enacted, the bill would force California to alter its top-two system to either permit write-ins in the general election, or to allow the top three candidates to qualify for the November ballot.

Montana Secretary of State Files Brief in Defense of Ballot Access Law

Posted on by September 28, 2019
6

On September 17, the Montana Secretary of State filed this brief in the ballot access case Montana Green Party v Stapleton, 6:18cv-87. This is the case that challenges the March petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties, and the distribution requirement that requires unequal numbers of signatures from at least 34 state house districts. The case was filed in 2018 and is still in U.S. District Court.

Montana’s distribution requirement is unique in history. It is the only distribution requirement that is based on units of equal population (state house districts), yet which requires varying numbers of signatures from each district. In some districts as few as 55 signatures are needed; in others, as many as 150. The state’s brief does not really grapple with why the number of signatures required should vary at all, much less by a ratio of 1:3.