There are two lawsuits pending aiming to expand who can be invited into the general election presidential debates. The one that was filed first is Level the Playing Field v Federal Election Commission, 1:15cv-1397. On November 9, the FEC answered the Complaint. On November 23, both sides will let the judge know their ideas for a briefing schedule.
Jill Stein, campaigning for the Green Party presidential nomination, was in North Carolina on the weekend of November 14-15. She held a press conference in Asheville to point out that North Carolina requires more support to get a new party on the ballot than any other state. That resulted in this article in Asheville’s daily newspaper, the Citizen-Times.
On November 6, independent candidate Mark Moore asked the 8th circuit to reverse the decision of the U.S. District Court that upheld Arkansas’s non-presidential independent candidate petition deadline. Arkansas law says independent candidate petitions (for office other than President) are due on the same day that major party candidates file a declaration of candidacy to run in a primary. The U.S. District Court decision said early deadlines are only unconstitutional if the number of signatures is very large. However, this conclusion is plainly wrong, because in Anderson v Celebrezze, the U.S. Supreme Court said early petition deadlines are unconstitutional regardless of the number of signatures. In Anderson v Celebrezze, the number of signatures was less than one-tenth of 1% of the number of registered voters in Ohio at the time.
The case is Moore v Martin, 15-3558.
Vermont State Senator David Zuckerman, a Progressive, has intervened in the lawsuit Corren v Sorrell, a campaign finance lawsuit pending in U.S. District Court. Vermont law prohibits anyone who plans to qualify for public funding from announcing candidacy for a 2016 race earlier than February 15, 2016. Zuckerman’s motion says he intends to run for Lieutenant Governor in 2016, as both a Progressive and a Democrat, and he wants to campaign now. Therefore, he is intervening in the case to argue that the time limit is unconstitutional.
No incumbent is running for Lieutenant Governor. Several Democrats, a Republican, and an independent have already announced for Lieutenant Governor. Vermont elects all its statewide constitutional offices every two years.
The Progressive Party plans to run someone for Governor in 2016, because it is disappointed in the Democratic incumbent.
On November 13, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Wittman v Personhuballah, 14-1504, a redistricting case from Virginia. The lower court 2-1 had invalidated Virginia’s U.S. House district boundaries. The issue is whether the plan packed too many African-American voters into one district, thus diminishing their influence in neighboring districts.
This is the fourth redistricting case the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing this term. The others are: (1) Shapiro v McManus, 14-990, which was argued on November 4, 2015; (2) Evenwel v Abbott, 14-940, which will be argued December 8, 2015; (3) Harris v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 14-232, which will be argued December 8, 2015.
The reason the Court hears so many redistricting cases is that a federal law requires that challenges to U.S. House districts must be heard by 3-judge U.S. District Courts. Any appeal from those courts goes directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court must either then hear the case, or rule summarily that the lower court was correct. Unlike the vast majority of cases, the Supreme Court is obliged to express an opinion.
The issue in Shapiro v McManus is whether it is really true that every challenge to a U.S. House redistricting plan needs a three-judge court. In that case, from Maryland, a single U.S. District Court judge determined that the case was not serious and therefore no three-judge court was convened.
