Ballot Access News

Former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Michael W. McConnell, who is now a law professor, has an article in the most recent edition of Yale Law Journal about Citizens United. He says the outcome was correct, but that the case should have been presented as one dealing with freedom of the press, not as free speech. Here is a link to the synopsis. Inside the synopsis, there is a link to the entire article.

The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”. The McConnell article sets forth the evidence that when the First Amendment was written, “press” didn’t mean the institutional press. It meant anyone who disseminated anything in mass-produced written form.

While McConnell was on the Tenth Circuit in 2008, he co-signed the decision Yes on Term Limits v Savage, 550 F 3d 1024, which struck down Oklahoma’s law banning out-of-state circulators. The lower court had upheld the law. The 10th circuit decision is the biggest ballot access defeat Oklahoma has ever suffered. Oklahoma officials are still angry about that decision, which forced them to stop prosecuting Paul Jacob and two other individuals on felony charges of conspiring to bring out-of-state circulators to Oklahoma. Oklahoma hates that decision so much, earlier this year it filed an amicus curiae brief in Judd v Libertarian Party of Virginia, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the Virginia case, which is the same issue, the constitutionality of bans on out-of-state petitioners. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

The Burlington (Vermont) Free Press of November 15 has this interview with U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders. In the interview, he says he will consider running for President as an independent if no other major candidate with his views runs.

As an independent, Sanders could not qualify for primary season matching funds; only candidates who seek the nomination of some political party (no matter how small or weak it is) can qualify for primary season matching funds. But Sanders did mention that he has a database of 700,000 people around the nation who have contributed to his past independent camapaigns for Congress. Thanks to PoliticalWire for the link. UPDATE: here is a story about Sanders in The Week, a weekly print publication that is also on-line, and which has existed in the U.S. since 2001. Before that it was founded in Great Britain.

On November 15, a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., delivered a temporary setback in a lawsuit designed to force the District to let its voters choose an Attorney General in the 2014 election. The case was filed by Paul Zuckerberg, who wants to run for D.C. Attorney General as a Democrat in the 2014 election.

There has never before been an election in D.C. for Attorney General of the District. But in 2010, the voters passed a charter amendment saying voters would start choosing the Attorney General in 2014. However, in 2013, the City Council passed a bill, cancelling the 2014 election for that office. Zukerberg sued, arguing that the City Council can’t override the Charter. However, technically, the 2013 bill cancelling the election isn’t in effect yet. That is because Congress has a right to review all laws passed by the D.C. City Council and veto laws if it wishes, within 30 days. The time period for Congressional review of the bill isn’t up yet. The 30 days refers only to days in which Congress is in session, not 30 calendar days, so the time period is really more than 30 calendar days.

The decision says that Zukerberg is free to re-file his lawsuit when that period is up. It is very rare for Congress to veto an act of the D.C. City Council. Congress is usually far too distracted with other business to look at the details of what the D.C. city council does. IT is extremely likely that Congress will do nothing, and that the repeal bill will soon take effect. See this story, which has a copy of the court decision.

The 2010 vote to elect an Attorney General was one more instance of the District of Columbia trying to persuade the rest of the nation that it deserves statehood. Normally a city elects a District Attorney and/or a City Attorney, not an Attorney General. “Attorney General” is typically a state office.