Oliver Hall, ballot access attorney for Ralph Nader and also ballot access attorney for several minor parties over the last decade, has this letter in the print edition of the New York Times, February 17. The letter rebuts the implication by Todd Gitlin (in an article published in the July 12 issue) that electoral activity should be confined to the two major parties.
The blog of the Birmingham News, Alabama’s biggest newspaper, published an appeal by the Constitution Party for a candidate to step forward to run in an upcoming special legislative election.
This Roll Call analysis shows that in 2014, only four Republican members of the U.S. House were defeated in primaries, and generally those four defeats were not caused because the incumbent was too “centrist.” The article also shows that so far, only six incumbent Republicans in the U.S. House seem likely to face a strong primary challenge.
This article rebuts the assumption commonly made by supporters of top-two systems that “90% of elections are decided in the primaries.”
On July 16, the Oregon Supreme Court issued this opinion in Couey v Atkins, S061650. The case had been filed in 2010 by a petitioner, to challenge a 2009 law that makes it illegal for anyone to simultaneously be a paid circulator for one petition and a volunteer petitioner for another ballot measure. The Oregon Supreme Court did not actually settle that question. But it said the lower courts should resolve it. The lower courts had refused to issue an opinion on the main issue, because of various procedural problems, such as whether the case is moot. Thanks to Dan Meek for the link.
On July 16, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 4-2 that the Milwaukee County District Attorney must stop his investigation into whether the Club for Growth illegally coordinated campaign activity with Governor Scott Walker, when Walker was fighting to survive a recall vote. There are several combined cases, but the first-named case is State ex rel Two Unnamed Petitioners v Peterson, 2013-AP-296.
Eric O’Keefe, who was director of the Wisconsin Club for Growth, is a former national director of the Libertarian Party. Here is the decision. The investigation into the spending and coordination of the Club for Growth, and other independent groups, was derailed by this court decision on the grounds that the Wisconsin campaign limits were not evaded, because the speech of the Club for Growth and other allied groups was issue advocacy, not express advocacy. “Express advocacy” means speech that tries to persuade voters explicitly to vote in a certain way.
A side issue in the cases was whether the investigation methods were improper. They involved raids on the homes of individuals in the middle of the night. One of the concurring justices focuses on that issue.
