On June 6, 2017, U.S. District Court Judge William O. Bertelsman, a Carter appointee, struck down a Kentucky campaign finance contribution limit that discriminated in favor of the Republican and Democratic Parties, and against all other parties. Shickel v Dilger, e.d., 2:15cv-155. The law, sec. 121.015(3)(b), said that individuals could give $5,000 to a “caucus campaign committee”, which was defined as: “members of the following caucus groups who receive contributions and make expenditures to support or oppose one or more specific candidates or slates of candidates for nomination or election, or a committee: 1. House Democratic caucus campaign committee; 2. House Republican caucus campaign committee; 3. Senate Democratic caucus campaign committee; and 4. Senate Republican caucus campaign committee.”

Because the law specifically names Republican and Democratic committees, and gives them the ability to receive $5,000 contributions, the law is discriminatory. Individuals generally can only give $1,000 to a candidate for state or local office, so a $5,000 contribution limit for contributions to these Democratic and Republican committees is valuable. UPDATE: starting July 1, 2017, that candidate limit goes from $1,000 to $2,000, due to a bill that passed the legislature earlier this year.

The case was filed on August 24, 2015, and was argued on January 10, 2017. Two of the three plaintiffs are Libertarian candidates. The third plaintiff is a Republican State Senator, John Shickel. Shickel did not complain about section 121.015(3)(b). His part of the case challenged another law that made it illegal for a lobbyist to give anything whatsoever to a legislator. That law was also struck down, partly because it is vague and, if taken literally, almost absurdly draconian. The decision mentions it might even apply to a drink of water. Thanks to Ken Moellman for this news.

The California Assembly Elections Committee will hear SB 568 on Wednesday, June 14. This is the bill that moves the primary for all office (in presidential years) from June to the third Tuesday in March. The bill also gives the Governor authority to move the primary date to an even earlier date.

Meanwhile, AB 84, the other bill that moves the primary from June to March, has had its hearing in the Senate Elections Committee cancelled by the bill’s author. This suggests that the leadership of the legislature has decided that SB 568, rather than AB 84, is the bill that will probably pass. Each bill has passed its house of origin. The difference in the two bills is that AB 84 sets the primary in the first week of March, but does not give the Governor the authority to move the primary to an even earlier date. Governor Jerry Brown has yet to indicate which bill he prefers (if any) and if he later indicates he prefers the AB 84 approach, then probably that bill would move ahead.

Moving the primary for Congress and partisan state office to March will have profound consequences for the top-two system. The Ninth Circuit, in a Washington state case, already ruled that forcing minor parties to run only in August instead of November is only a “slight” burden, because, the Ninth Circuit said, August is near the peak of voter interest. The Ninth Circuit said it would be a far different matter if minor party candidates for Congress and partisan state office were confined to running in March, which is far from November.

The New Jersey Constitution Party has successfully placed Matt Riccardi on the New Jersey ballot for Governor, for the November 2017 election. This is the first time in the party’s history that it has had a nominee on the ballot for that office. Here is the party’s web page.

However, because the candidate didn’t submit a letter from the state officers of the party, permitting him to use the party’s name as his ballot label, he will be on the ballot as “Putting NJ First.” UPDATE: the New Jersey Elections Department now says he will have “Constitution Party” on the ballot next to his name. This update is being posted on June 11.