Green and Constitution Parties Win Georgia Presidential Ballot Access Case in Eleventh Circuit

Posted on by February 1, 2017
1

On February 1, 2017, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the March 2016 U.S. District Court decision that struck down Georgia’s ballot access barrier for minor party and independent presidential candidates. That March 2016 lower court decision said requiring approximately 50,000 signatures for president is unconstitutionally high, given the facts and historical record in Georgia. UPDATE: here is an Atlanta Journal-Constitution story about the decision.

The Eleventh Circuit did not write its own opinion. It just entered a two-sentence order saying the U.S. District Court decision is correct. The U.S. District Court decision is reported now: Green Party of Georgia v Kemp, 171 F.Supp 3d 1340 (n.d. 2016).

This decision will be very helpful in the new struggle needed in Florida for presidential ballot access. Florida had had very easy presidential ballot access starting in 1999, until August 2016, when the Florida Secretary of State changed his mind and said he would enforce a 2011 ballot access law that his predecessor had refused to implement. That 2011 Florida law said qualified minor parties could not be on for President unless they submitted over 100,000 valid signatures or unless the Federal Election Commission had awarded “national committee” status to that particular party. The Secretary of State in 2011 had said he would not enforce that law because he had no official knowledge of which parties the FEC had recognized. But in August 2016 that decision was revoked, which kept Gloria La Riva, Evan McMullin, and Thomas Hoefling off the Florida ballot, with no warning.

Florida is in the Eleventh Circuit along with Georgia and Alabama, so Eleventh Circuit’s decision binds Florida also.

Iowa Bill to Delete Income Tax Form Check-Off for Political Parties

Posted on by February 1, 2017
2

Iowa Representative Greg Heartsill (R-Chariton) has introduced HF 6, which deletes the state income tax check-off that benefits qualified parties. It lets taxpayers send $1.50 to the political party of the taxpayer’s choice. Checking the box does not increase the taxpayer’s tax payment.

On January 31, the bill passed a subcommittee of the House State Government. The vote was 2-1. The two Republicans voted for the bill; the one Democrat voted against it. If the bill passes, it takes it effect with 2017 tax returns. The Libertarian Party gained party status in November 2016 for the first time. It is not known if the motivation for the bill is to injure the Libertarian Party.

The last time a third party participated in the program was in 2002, when the Green Party was on the form. The Green Party received $3,210 during 2003 (from 2002 tax returns); Democrats received $67,140 and Republicans $70,321 that year. Thanks to John Deeth for this news.

Kansas Libertarian Party to Choose U.S. House Nominee in Special Election Lets Any Registered Libertarian Participate

Posted on by February 1, 2017
Reply

The Kansas Libertarian Party will choose a nominee for U.S. House, 4th district (special election) on February 11. Any registered Libertarian who attends will be permitted to vote for the nominee. See this story. By contrast, the Democratic and Republican Party nominating conventions only allow party officers to vote.

Gary Johnson and Jill Stein File Opening Brief in Their Lawsuit Against Commission on Presidential Debates

Posted on by February 1, 2017
2

On January 31, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein filed their opening brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C., in Johnson v Commission on Presidential Debates, 16-7107. The issue is whether the federal antitrust laws cover general election presidential debates.

The brief says, “The District Court (which had ruled in favor of the Commission on Presidential Debates) cited Sheppard v Lee (9th circuit 1991) for the proposition that ‘neither the business of conducting the government nor the holding of a political office constitutes trade or commerce within the meaning of the Sherman Act. True enough, but beside the point. Campaigning for the presidency is neither the business of conducting government nor the holding of a political office. It is a private business undertaking…The District Court asserted that calling political activity a market place does not make it so. True. But the District Court’s ipse dixit denying that any politically connected activity can be a marketplace similarly doesn’t make it so. Political activity is a market place when it involves billions of dollars of commerce as alleged in the Complaint…Suppose a presidential candidate sold $100 million worth of ‘Make America Great’ caps to promote his candidacy. It would be illogical to deny that such commerce did not involve a marketplace for caps because a significant or exclusive motivation for the sales was political.”

“The multibillion dollar business of campaigning for the presidency implicates an obvious marketplace: the selling of candidate ideas and characteristics to voters…The buyers in the marketplace respond with campaign donations, endorsements, volunteer work, election-day votes, or all of the above.”

The brief makes an analogy between the newspaper business, which is clearly covered by the anti-trust laws, and campaigning.

Judge Neil Gorsuch Has Good, but Sparse, Record for Minor Party and Independent Voters and Candidates

Posted on by January 31, 2017
2

Tenth Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s choice for the U.S. Supreme Court, has a sparse but good record in cases involving independent candidates and minor parties. In January 2014 he was part of a 3-judge panel that struck down a Colorado campaign finance law that discriminated against supporters of independent and minor party candidates. Although he did not write the decision in Riddle v Hickenlooper, 742 F 3d 922, he agreed with his two colleages, Judges Bobby Baldock and Robert Bacharach, that the law was unconstitutional. He was so interested in the case that he wrote his own concurrence.

Here is a link to the entire decision. The lower court had upheld the Colorado discrimination on the grounds that Democrats and Republicans “need” more campaign contributions than minor party and independent candidates do.