On February 20, a Washington state superior court in Pierce County ruled that pro bono legal assistance to a committee that is trying to recall a public official is not a campaign contribution to the recall.

In 2012, Robin Farris decided to launch a recall of the Pierce County Assessor-Treasurer, Dale Washam. Washington state recall petitions cannot begin to circulate until the recall proponents first go to court to establish that they have a good basis for recall. But Washington state law also set an $800 contribution limit to a recall committee. Farris went to federal court to overcome that limit, and she won injunctive relief that the limit can’t be applied to her committee. The Ninth Circuit agreed, although the Ninth Circuit declined to rule the limit unconstitutional for future recall campaigns.

Then, the Washington Public Disclosure Commission tried to take punitive action against Farris, on the grounds that the free legal help she received in her lawsuit against the limit constituted a campaign contribution. Since she hadn’t reported it as a campaign contribution, the Commission threatened her with a fine. But in the new lawsuit, called Institute for Justice v State of Washington, the state court ruled that free legal help to a recall committee for a constitutional challenge, is not a “campaign contribution.” Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.

The North Carolina State Board of Elections has a new voter registration tally on its web page. The current percentages are: Democratic 41.60%; Republican 30.57%; Libertarian .41%; independents and miscellaneous 27.42%.

Just prior to the November 2014 election, the percentages were: Democratic 41.76%; Republican 30.37%; Libertarian .39%; independents and miscellaneous 27.49%. Thanks to Ray Ubinger for this news.

A U.S. District Court in Ohio will hold a trial in Duncan v Husted, s.d., 2:!3cv-1157, on June 22. This is the case in which an independent candidate challenges a new Ohio law that says independent candidates must complete their petition within one year. The law is discriminatory because it doesn’t tell candidates running in a primary that they must finish up their petitions in any particular period of time. Nor does the law tell a newly-qualifying party that it must complete its petition within one year.

Laws that limit the amount of time for a petition to be completed discriminate in favor of candidates and parties that can afford to hire paid circulators, versus those who can’t. The plaintiff, Richard Duncan, was the only independent presidential candidate who qualified for the Ohio 2012 ballot. He lives in Ohio and he does all his own petitioning. It takes him several years to accumulate 5,000 valid signatures. He believes the new law was passed with the goal of blocking his 2016 independent presidential petition. He had also successfully petitioned as an independent for President in Ohio in 2008.

In 2012, he received 12,502 votes in Ohio for President, more votes than two other presidential candidates who were on the Ohio ballot received. Socialist Party nominee Stewart Alexander only received 2,944 votes in Ohio, and Constitution Party nominee Virgil Goode, a former member of Congress, only received 8.151.