U.S. District Court Sets Hearing Date for Preliminary Injunction Request in Independent Party Case

On April 18, U.S. District Court Judge William B. Shubb will hear Independent Party v Padilla, e.d., 2:16cv-316. The party is seeking a preliminary injunction to ask the Secretary of State to determine how many registered voters it has. In California, parties become ballot-qualified if they have approximately 60,000 registered members. Normally when a group wishes to become a party, it asks the Secretary of State to work with the counties and find out how many registrants it has. But the California Secretary of State has refused to ask county election officials to tally the number of members of the Independent Party, on the grounds that the Independent Party is an impermissible party, because its name is too similar to the American Independent Party.

The court hearing will be in Sacramento.

Oregon Will Not Print Any Presidential Candidate Names on Independent Party Presidential Primary, but Will Count All Write-ins

The Independent Party is entitled to its own presidential primary in Oregon. This is the first time Oregon has ever held a presidential primary for a party other than the Democratic and Republican Parties, except it is possible Oregon held one for the Progressive Party in 1916.

On March 16, the Oregon Attorney General ruled that the Independent Party ballot will not have any presidential candidates’ names. But there will be a presidential primary ballot for the party, and all write-ins will be tallied. Because the Independent Party is the only party that allows independents to vote in its primary, and because the Independent Party itself has over 110,000 registered members, there will almost certainly be tens of thousands of write-ins to count.

The Independent Party wanted the Secretary of State to list all the presidential candidates whose names are on the Democratic and Republican ballots, and Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and Michael Bloomberg as well. But the Oregon law says that candidates should be on presidential primary ballots automatically only if newspapers mention their candidacies for a particular party. Because there are no newspaper stories that say any of those presidential candidates are seeking the Independent Party nomination, the state won’t list those candidates.

State officials also say that the presidential candidate who gets the most write-in votes will be the Independent Party’s nominee in November, regardless of the wishes of the state party officers. This part of the ruling seems contrary to law, and it is not known if the Independent Party will accept that ruling or not.

U.S. District Court Upholds Restrictions on Vermont Candidates who Receive Public Funding, but Reserves Judgment on Details

On March 9, U.S. District Court Judge William Sessions upheld restrictions on Vermont candidates who qualify for public funding, but acknowledged that many details of the restrictions are still murky. Judge Sessions says that if a Vermont state court proceeds with punishment for Progressive Party candidate Dean Corren, that Corren is free to re-file his case in federal court.

Dean Corren was the Progressive Party nominee for Lieutenant Governor in 2014. The state fined Corren $20,000, and ordered him to repay $52,000 of public financing, because the Democratic Party (which supported Corren) had sent out a mass e-mail inviting Democrats to come to a rally at which Corren, along with other candidates who weren’t Progressives, were speaking. The state believed that the e-mail was an illegal campaign contribution.

Judge Sessions wrote, “Testimony before the Court revealed confusion on all sides as to what the law allows, and whether political parties in particular can play a role in publicly-financed campaigns.” He noted that a state court is considering whether the fine against Corren is proper or not. Judge Sessions wrote that in his opinion, the law “allows candidates to communicate freely with, and receive meaningful assistance from, their supporters. Political parties in particular may provide public-financed candidates with office space, voter lists, training sessions, and other forms of traditional party support without violating any statutory restrictions.” Therefore, if the state court upholds Corren’s fine, it is very likely a new federal case will countermand the fine.

Judge Sessions upheld the part of the public financing law that says publicly-financed candidates may not announce their candidacy before February 15 of an election year. That issue was in the lawsuit because a 2016 Progressive candidate, David Zuckerman, had intervened in the case to raise that point. As a result of that outcome, Zuckerman will not try to qualify for public funding. The case is Corren v Sorrell, 2:15cv-58.

FEC Web Page Posts Primary and General Election Filing Deadlines

The Federal Election Commission has this chart on its web page, showing the dates of presidential primaries and caucuses, the dates of congressional primaries, and the filing deadlines. Not every entry is necessarily correct. For example, the chart for Florida congressional primaries shows the independent filing deadline to be the date on which petitions in lieu of filing fees are due, not the actual filing deadline. Most candidates for Congress in Florida don’t use the in lieu of petition, whether they are party candidates or independents. For some reason the FEC puts the in lieu of deadline in the independent column, but not the column for partisan candidates. The FEC made the same mistake in its 2014 chart.