Three Pennsylvania Parties Ask U.S. District Court to Put Them on 2016 Ballot with no Petition

On April 26, the Constitution, Green, and Libertarian Parties asked a U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania to put them on the November 2016 ballot, on the basis that the old ballot access law was declared unconstitutional last year, and the legislature has not passed a new one. Constitution Party of Pennsylvania v Aichele, e.d., 12-cv-2726.

The parties are requesting a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. Such requests are usually handled very quickly.

The same parties, as well as the Socialist Party, obtained similar relief in Ohio in 2008. The old Ohio law had been declared unconstitutional in September 2006 and the legislature had not passed a new law as of 2008, so a U.S. District Court put the four parties on the November ballot. They not only remained on in 2010, but 2012 and 2014 as well.

Politico Article Explains how Pennsylvania Presidential Primary Voters Must be Attentive to Make their Votes Count

This Politico article explains clearly the Pennsylvania presidential primary system, in which voters had to choose delegates to the national convention with no voting cues on the primary ballot. Candidates for delegate run against each other, and the Pennsylvania ballot gives them no label relative to whom they will support at the convention.

A somewhat similar system was once used in presidential general elections in Florida. Florida November ballots before 1931 had no party labels for any partisan office. Furthermore, voters voted directly for candidates for presidential elector, and the ballot didn’t say whom the electors were pledged to. The only voter cue was that the candidates of the Democratic Party were always listed at the top of the ballot.

U.S. Court of Appeals Procedural Ruling Will Assist Libertarian Party Lawsuit on Bequests

On April 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued this procedural ruling in Holmes v FEC, 15-5120. The Holmes case is a challenge to the federal campaign finance limits from individual givers. The federal law lets an individual give $2,700 to a federal candidate in primary season, and another $2,700 in the general election. The plaintiffs say that if Congress does not believe a combined contribution of $5,400 to one particular candidate will cause corrpution, there can’t be any logical reason why the individual donor can’t give $5,400 to the candidate during the general election season (assuming he or she has given nothing to the candidate in primary season).

The Appeals Court did not decide the merits of this case, but it did rule that the case is not frivolous, and therefore it must be set before the entire panel of Judges in the D.C. Circuit. Congress wrote the campaign finance laws in 1974 to provide that when someone sues over the constitutionally of the federal campaign finance laws of 1974, the case must be set before all the Circuit Judges, unless it is a frivolous case. So, now the case gets its chance to be argued in front of all fourteen of the Appeals Judges.

This ruling virtually guarantees that another case, Libertarian National Committee v FEC, will also go before all the circuit judges. That is the case over whether the Libertarian Party can accept a $235,575 bequest all at once, or whether it can only get the money piecemeal, by receiving $33,400 per year while most of the money remains in escrow. Attorneys for the FEC have been fighting the party’s attempt to get the case before the Appeals judges.

U.S. Supreme Court Expands Free Speech Rights for Government Employees

On April 26, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Heffernan v City of Paterson, New Jersey, 14-1280. By a vote of 6-2, the Court ruled that a policeman who was demoted because he was seen holding a campaign sign for a candidate for Mayor is entitled to damages. It was already settled law that government employees cannot be demoted, fired, or denied promotion, just because of their political activities, unless they are in policy-making decisions or work closely with policy-making officials.

But in this case, the policeman had not actually been campaigning for any candidate for Mayor. He was merely delivering a campaign sign to his bedridden mother, who wanted to put the sign in her lawn. The lower courts denied any relief for the policeman, on the theory that while he may have been protected if he had been engaging in campaigning, in this case he wasn’t campaigning. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and said even if he wasn’t campaigning, the fact that he was demoted because he was thought to be campaigning also entitles him to relief. See this story.