On April 20, the Federal Election Commission deadlocked 3-3 on whether to extend the Socialist Workers Party’s exemption from having to report its campaign contributions and also its expenditures. Because there is a tie, the motion to extend the exemption fails. The three Republican Commissioners voted in favor of the SWP. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.
On April 19, Emidio Soltysik filed his 28-page reply brief in Soltysik v Padilla, in the Ninth Circuit. The issue is the California law that says some candidates for Congress and partisan state office may have their party label on the ballot, but others may not.
Soltysik makes good use of the recent Fourth Circuit opinion Marcellus v Virginia State Board of Elections, 849 F.3d 169, which said, “if a law gives some candidates…a party identifier, but not other candidates for the (same office), it would impose a burden on the associational rights of the candidates left unidentified, even though no candidate has an absolute right to be so identified.”
Page 19 of Soltysik’s brief says, “By providing a space on the ballot in which candidates for voter-nominated office can indicate their political party preferences, the State has created a limited public forum and the Court should apply First Amendment forum analysis. Having created a limited forum, the State cannot discriminate on the basis of viewpoint by allowing the expression of some party preferences, but not others.”
The Texas House Elections Committee will hear HB 3068 on April 24, Monday. Thanks to Jim Riley for this news.
The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether to hear Libertarian Party of Kentucky v Grimes, 16-1034, at its May 11 conference. The issue is the state’s definition of a qualified party, which makes it impossible for a group to become ballot-qualified unless it makes a certain showing in a presidential race.
This story says independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin still owes his election law attorneys $520,000, from work they did for him during 2016. Yet, McMullin and his attorneys did not file any ballot access lawsuits. He could have been on the ballot in more than twelve states if he had done so. He had a very strong potential cases against Florida, Texas, and Wyoming.
A party called Better for America, which was formed in the spring of 2016 to find a candidate similar to McMullin, did file and win a ballot access lawsuit against New Mexico. Better for America then got on the ballot in New Mexico and nominated McMullin, so he was on the New Mexico ballot because of a lawsuit. However he himself had no connection to that lawsuit. Thanks to Political Wire for the link.
