The New Mexico Libertarian Party has received permission to pay for a recount of its primary write-ins for Governor. The party had no candidate for Governor on the primary ballot, but it had a write-in candidate. The initial tally said he failed to poll as many as 230 write-ins, which is the minimum number needed for a valid nomination. See this story. The recount is costing the party $8,500.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer has this news story about the Ohio Libertarian Party’s submitting 103,000 signatures to get back on the ballot.
At the June 2018 primary for the California U.S. House race, 11th district, there were two Democrats, one Republican, and one independent on the ballot. The incumbent Democratic congressman, Mark DeSaulnier, placed first. Second was the Republican, John Fitzgerald. Here is a link to the semi-official election returns.
According to this story, Fitzgerald is a holocaust denier who had previously run for the same seat as a Democrat. Thanks to Political Wire for the link.
According to various news stories, the three most likely nominees for the U.S. Supreme Court this month are three U.S. Court of Appeals judges, Brett Kavanaugh, Raymond Kethledge, and Amy Barrett.
Judge Kavanaugh had one case involving the Libertarian Party. In 2008 the District of Columbia accepted Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr’s declaration of write-in filing. Barr was not on the ballot, but he wanted his write-ins counted, so he filed the names of three eligible presidential elector candidates with the Board. He was the only declared write-in candidate for president in D.C. that year. Nevertheless, the D.C. Board of Elections refused to reveal how many write-ins he had received. Therefore, the election returns, compiled in various publications, all showed that Barr had received zero votes in D.C.
The party sued to force the Board to tally the write-ins, but the U.S. District Court, and the D.C. circuit, ruled against the party. Judge Kavanaugh was part of the panel in Libertarian Party v D.C. Board of Elections. At oral argument, he expressed support for the party’s position, but when the decision came out, he had sided with the other two judges. They ruled that the votes had been counted, because the D.C. Board of Elections revealed the total number of write-ins cast for president, including frivolous write-ins and write-ins for people who had not filed a write-in declaration of candidacy. This was an absurd conclusion. One might have said that if the Board had released no election returns for any candidate for president, except the total number of votes cast for president, that the Board had “counted” the votes.
Judge Raymond Kethledge of the Sixth Circuit wrote the 2016 decision in U.S. v NorCal Tea PartyPatriots, a case on whether the Internal Revenue Service was discriminating against Tea Party groups when they filed for tax-exempt status. It starts, “Among the most serious allegations a federal court can address are that an Executive agency has targeted citizens for mistreatment based on their political views. No citizen – Republican or Democrat, socialist or libertarian – should be targeted or even have to fear being targeted on those grounds.”
Judge Kethledge was also on the panel in Libertarian Party of Ohio v Husted, 11-4066, which made a favorable procedural ruling for the Libertarian Party on August 31, 2012. The U.S. District Court had earlier put the party on the ballot for the 2011 partisan elections, and the state had asked the Sixth Circuit to reverse that. The Sixth Circuit, in a per curiam decision, said the case at that point was moot, because the law the party was challenging had been suspended by a successful referendum petition.
Judge Amy Barrett of the Seventh Circuit has never had a case involving minor parties or independent candidates.
On June 29, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell issued a ruling in Libertarian National Committee v Federal Election Commission, 1:16cv-121. The case concerns the maximum amount that a deceased individual may leave to a political party. It had been pending in the U.S. District Court since 2016. The most recent brief in the case had been filed by the FEC on October 26, 2017.
The FEC has long held that if a deceased individual leaves a large bequest to a political party, the political party cannot receive the money at the settlement of probate. Instead, it can only receive $33,900 in any calendar year, and the remainder must remain in limbo, until a year passes and the party can receive a second chunk of the money. This law is supposed to protect the public against bribery.
The ruling says that the party’s challenge to the law may be certified to the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. circuit. Congress has special rules about lawsuits that challenge the constitutionality of federal campaign finance limits. Only certain courts are permitted to rule on such challenges, but just getting into the correct court requires persuading a U.S. District Court that the challenge is substantial and not frivolous. The ruling is 87 pages.
