On April 11, the trial began in Covington v State, m.d., 1:15cv-399. The issue is whether North Carolina’s legislative districts are, in some instances, unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. See this story. The trial will probably last all week.
The three judges are: Thomas D. Schroeder, a Bush Jr. appointee; James A. Wynn, Jr., an Obama appointee; Catherine Eagles, an Obama appointee.
Public radio in Sacramento has this story about initiative petitions in California and the rates professional circulators receive. The story says there is so much demand this season, one initiative is paying $5.50 per signature. Thanks to Around the Capitol for the link.
The Federal Election Commission has filed this 23-page brief in defense of the federal campaign finance law that prevents the Libertarian Party from receiving its $235,575 bequest from Joseph Shaber all in one lump-sum, and using that money for ballot access petitioning. Before December 2014, federal law did not permit individuals to give more than $33,400 in any one calendar year to a political party, and the law even applies to bequests left to the party. The federal law says the money in the bequest must be handed over to a party piece-meal, year after year, instead of all at once.
In December 2014 Congress changed the limits on donations to political parties, so that individuals can give $100,200 per year to a party for its legal expenses, and another $100,200 for the party’s national convention expenses, and yet another $100,200 per year for headquarters expenses. The FEC brief says that the party should not complain about the restriction on receiving its bequest and using it for general purposes (including ballot access), because the party is free to accept all the money now if it puts the money in its specialized bank accounts for legal bills, national convention expenses, and expenses relating to its headquarters building.
In effect, the FEC is saying that deceased individuals cannot be allowed to give large donations to a political party, and let the party use it for expenses related to campaign expenses (including ballot access), because that would cause “corruption”. But the FEC is saying it is all right to let wealthy individuals (living or dead) donate up to $300,600 to a party for certain kinds of expenses because that does not cause “corruption.”
The FEC brief also says that the party has no right to complain about ballot access expenses, because if the party had real support, it would always poll enough votes to remain on the ballot and wouldn’t need to spend money on petitions. This point ignores the fact that some states have unreasonably repressive tests for a party to remain on the ballot. The Pennsylvania retention law, that a group must have 15% registration membership, is so severe that if that were the law in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia, the Republican Party would not be automatically on the ballot in those places. Similar, if the Pennsylvania law were in force in Utah and Idaho, the Democratic Party would not be on the ballot in those two states.
On April 6, Level the Playing Field filed this brief in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. It asks the court to instruct the Federal Election Commission to enforce the campaign finance laws, and rule that the Commission on Presidential Debates must revamp its rules about who can be included in the debates. The case is Level the Playing Field v FEC, 15-cv-1397. Even if you don’t usually read legal briefs, consider reading this brief, because it is clear and easy to understand, and a good read.
An Arizona voter has filed a lawsuit in state court to prevent the March 22 presidential primary election returns from being certified. The lawsuit says the election irregularities were so great, no one can have confidence in the results. See this story.
