On October 18, a federal lawsuit was filed against a Michigan law that makes it illegal for businesses that serve alcohol to post signs that advocate a vote for or against a candidate. See this story. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.
3
David Sirota has this interesting analysis of the presidential election in Colorado, with emphasis on Gary Johnson and the existence of a marijuana legalization measure on the Colorado ballot. Thanks to Eric Reinhardt for the link.
On October 18, U.S. District Court Judge Percy Anderson struck down California’s procedure for a newly-qualifying party to get on the ballot. The 16-page decision is California Justice Committee & Constitution Party v Bowen, cv 12-3956, central district. The basis for the decision is that the deadline is so early. In 2012, it was January 2.
The decision was not a big surprise, because Judge Anderson had enjoined the deadline on May 22, 2012. This decision will help to win pending lawsuits against early deadlines in Alabama, Hawaii, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Vermont. UPDATE: here is the ACLU press release about the decision. This case was handled by the ACLU of Southern California.
On October 15, U.S. District Court Judge Garland Burrell ruled that the U.S. Postal Service must tell the California state campaign finance enforcement agency how many pieces of mail a particular candidate mailed. The California agency, the Fair Political Practices Commission, believed that William Eisen broke some California campaign finance laws when he mailed 200 pieces of mail to voters. But the Fair Political Practices Commission needed proof of the number of pieces mailed, and asked the U.S. Postal Service to reveal that information. The Postal Service refused, so the California agency then sued the postal service and won the case. Fair Political Practices Commission v U.S. Postal Service, 2:12-cv-93.
The Postal Service had argued that the Freedom of Information Act does not apply in this instance because the act has an exemption for information concerning commerce. The Postal Service also argued that if it had to disclose such information, future candidates would shun using the postal mail and instead use private delivery services. If the candidate had used a private delivery service, the Freedom of Information Act would not have applied. But the decision says that there are no private delivery services for mailings of this type.