Open Democracy, a worldwide on-line news source based in Great Britain, has this story about the Working Families Party of the U.S.
1
On November 25, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, an Obama appointee, ruled that the Louisiana Republican Party’s challenge to part of the McCain-Feingold law is entitled to be heard by a 3-judge court. Here is the 19-page opinion in Republican Party of Louisiana v Federal Election Commission.
Very few constitutional lawsuits are entitled to be heard by a three-judge U.S. District Court. In election law, the only types of case entitled to a 3-judge U.S. District Court are redistricting constitutional cases, and challenges to the McCain-Feingold law of 2002. The reason 3-judge cases are so powerful for plaintiffs is that after the 3-judge court makes its ruling, then the losing side is guaranteed the ability to receive U.S. Supreme Court review. The U.S. Supreme Court must either summarily affirm the lower court ruling, or give the case a full hearing and a full opinion.
The Louisiana Republican Party is trying to strike down the part of the McCain-Feingold law that won’t let state and local parties engage in any type of federal campaign activity, except through segregated federal accounts. State and local parties have severe restrictions on raising money for their federal campaign accounts, due to federal law. If parties could spend money on federal campaign activity out of their ordinary bank accounts, they would be much freer. The Louisiana Republican Party only wants to make independent expenditures in federal campaigns, not direct contributions to federal candidates. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news. A win by the Louisiana Republican Party would be a very meaningful victory for all state and local political parties, including minor parties.
The National Popular Vote movement, to reform U.S. presidential elections, has sent an organizer to Missouri. Missouri has not yet passed the National Popular Vote bill. See this story in The Missourian, daily newspaper of Washington, Missouri, near St. Louis.
This article describes how Republican presidential candidate Jim Gilmore is using the free time that NBC gave him. Gilmore received free time due to the Donald Trump appearance on Saturday Night Live, and the Equal Time rule.
Shane Goldmacher has this story in Politico, which says that some recognized Republican candidates for President are complaining about primary ballot access. One complaint is the very high filing fees some southern Republican Parties are charging for presidential candidates to get on the ballot. State laws in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, South Carolina, and Texas permit the Republican Party to create their own barriers, beyond those mentioned in state law.
The irony is that neither states nor political parties are permitted to impose mandatory filing fees on candidates without giving any alternative method to get on the ballot. The two U.S. Supreme Court filing fee decisions make this clear. Both were unanimous. Bullock v Carter, a 1972 Texas case, involved filing fees set by political parties. Lubin v Panish, a 1974 California case, involved filing fees set by state law. In both cases the practices were unconstitutional because the fees were mandatory, with no alternative. Any Republican presidential candidate, mainstream or not, was free to file a lawsuit against the high fees in some southern states, but none did so.
As to petitions, no state requires more than 5,000 signatures for any candidate recognized by the media to get on a presidential primary ballot. By contrast, North Carolina requires independent candidates, and newly-qualifying parties, to get 89,366 valid signatures.