On March 19, a U.S. District Court upheld Arizona’s law concerning voter registration forms. The law says only the two largest parties should be given their own checkbox on the voter registration form, in the part of the form that asks voters which party they wish to register into. If a voter wants to register into any other party, qualified or not, the voter must write the name of that party on a blank line and check the “other” box. Here is the 15-page opinion in Arizona Libertarian Party v Bennett, cv 11-856. The Green Party is a co-plaintiff.

The opinion says that the form is not discriminatory. It also suggests that it is constitutionally permissible for a state legislature to pass laws that discriminate in favor of the Democratic and Republican Parties and against all other parties. See page 13, which quotes former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who wrote in 1996 that the state interest in “stability” (which Rehnquist did not define) permits it to pass laws that encourage a “healthy two-party system.” These quotes are from Timmons v Twin Cities Area New Party, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld laws that prevent two parties from jointly nominating the same candidate and having both labels on the ballot.

Page fourteen implies that the political party’s witness was mistaken when he said that Arizona was the only state with a voter registration form that listed some qualified parties, but not other parties. However, the witness (me) actually said that Arizona was the only state that held primaries for all qualified parties but listed some, but not all, qualified parties on the registration form. The Judge was informed of this at oral argument, but she seems not to have been listening.

Parties in Arizona need to boost their registration in order to remain on the ballot. Parties that petition to get on the ballot are removed from the ballot after two elections, unless they either polled 5% for Governor or President, or else increased their registration to two-thirds of 1% of the state total. The Green Party will probably be removed from the ballot later this year, because without being listed on the form, chances are dim that it can get its registration up that high. Libertarians generally keep their registration above that level, but it is always a struggle, and the goal would be much easier to reach if these parties were listed on the voter registration form.

On March 15, Nebraska LB 349 passed the Government, Military Affairs, and Veterans Committee. It repeals the restriction that says no one who voted in the primary can sign a petition for an independent presidential candidate. It also moves the deadline for independent presidential petitions from late August to August 1.

If the bill passes the Senate and is signed into law, Texas will be the only state that restricts primary voters from signing any type of petition for minor parties or independent candidates.

On March 19, U.S. District Court Judge Robert L. Wilkins ruled that the Libertarian Party’s campaign finance case involving a bequest to the party can be certified to the entire panel of U.S. Court of Appeals Judges in the D.C. Circuit. The decision is 28 pages, followed by 20 pages of Findings of Fact.

The question certified to the U.S. Court of Appeals is, “Does imposing annual contribution limits against the bequest of Raymond Groves Burrington violate the First Amendment rights of the Libertarian Party?” This will be the first time any minor party has ever had any election law appeal before all the judges of the D.C. Circuit (excepting cases in which one or both of the major parties were also in the case). Such panels are rare, but the federal campaign law does say that substantial constitutional questions concerning the 1974 Federal campaign finance law must be certified to the full set of judges. The Federal Election Commission had argued that the Libertarian Party’s lawsuit is not substantial enough to go to those judges.

Judge Wilkins disagreed with the way the Libertarian Party had framed the question to be decided by the D.C. Circuit, so he exercised his right to re-frame the question. The Libertarian Party thought the proper question was whether any bequest to a political party, received by the party after the death of the donor, could be restricted. But Judge Wilkins narrowed the question down to this particular case. A very important fact in this case is that Burrington, who left the Libertarian Party $217,734 in his will, had not told the Libertarian Party that he was planning to leave the money to the party. Furthermore, in his entire lifetime, he had only given $25 to the party. This is an important fact, because it shows that (as the decision says) “the anti-corruption interests that would be implicated by allowing the Libertarian National Committee to receive the entire bequest all at once may be minimal.” By contrast, the judge, and others, can imagine a situation in which a dying individual promises to leave a great deal of money to a political party on the condition that the party carry out certain campaign activities that would benefit the individual while he was alive, or might benefit his or her other heirs.