Vermont Progressive State Senator Intervenes in Campaign Finance Lawsuit

Posted on by November 14, 2015
1

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.

U.S. Supreme Court Accepts a Fourth Redistricting Case

Posted on by November 14, 2015
2

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.

New York Board of Elections Releases New Voter Registration Tally

Posted on by November 14, 2015
4

The New York State Board of Elections has put out a new registration tally, the first new data since April 2015.

The new percentages for each party are: Democratic 49.19%; Republican 23.67%; Independence 4.02%; Conservative 1.38%; Working Families .41%; Green .22%; Libertarian .04%; Women’s Equality .01%; Reform .00+%; independent 21.06%.

A year ago, the percentages were: Democratic 49.46%; Republican 23.48%; Independence 4.08%; Conservative 1.33%; Working Families .41%; Green .21%; Libertarian .05%; independent 20.97%.

U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Hear Michigan Ballot Access Case

Posted on by November 13, 2015
3

Matt Erard, a Michigan Socialist Party activist, has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his ballot access case. The Supreme Court ruled in 1968 in Williams v Rhodes that states cannot make it more difficult for parties to get on the ballot than to stay on the ballot. Specifically, the court ruled against Ohio, partly because Ohio required 15% support to get a new party on the ballot, but an old party could remain on as long as it polled 10% of the vote.

Michigan also requires more support for a new party to get on the ballot than for an old party to stay on the ballot. However, the lower federal courts still refused to invalidate the Michigan law. Here is the Michigan cert petition.