This Boston Globe column suggests that the Democratic and Republican Parties of Massachusetts should cease keeping candidates off their own party’s primary ballots. Party rules for both major parties in Massachusetts say that candidates cannot petition for a spot on a statewide primary unless those candidates get at least 15% of the vote at state conventions. The Massachusetts election law has no such provision, but both federal and state courts in Massachusetts have upheld the ability of the major parties to the 15% rule. Democrats invented it in the early 1980’s and Republicans later copied the idea.
Two independent candidates for U.S. Senate are petitioning to be on the South Dakota general election ballot. Besides former U.S. Senator Larry Pressler, there is Gordon Howie. See this story. Howie is described as the “tea party” candidate.
In 2010, Howie had run in the Republican primary for Governor. That primary had five candidates on the June ballot. The results were: Dennis Daugaard 50.4%, Scott Munsterman 17.6%, Dave Knudson 15.8%, Howie 12.4%, and Ken Knuppe 3.8%.
On April 3, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder signed HB 5152, which repeals all restrictions on residency for petitioners. The new law says petitioners must be at least 18 years old, and a citizen. The bill had passed the legislature on March 27.
In 2010, U.S. Senator Harry Reid was up for re-election. One of his best friends, a wealthy developer named F. Harvey Whittemore, gave gifts to 29 individuals in his family and his circle of friends, of $5,000 each. Whittemore then asked each of the recipients to please donate $4,600 to Harry Reid’s re-election campaign, and they each complied. In 2012 he was indicted for violating federal campaign laws. He was convicted in 2013 and he is appealing his conviction to the Ninth Circuit.
One of his defenses in his opening brief to the Ninth Circuit is that campaign contribution limits to candidates are unconstitutional. His brief says that it makes no sense that it is legal for anyone to contribute as much as desired to a PAC that makes independent expenditures on behalf of a candidate, and yet illegal for the same individual to make direct campaign contributions. The brief says that direct campaign contributions provide more transparency, because a donation to a candidate is reported to the public quickly, whereas a donation to a PAC won’t be revealed to the public until tax filings made the year after the donation.
Whittemore was required to file his opening brief on April 2, the very day that the U.S. Supreme Court released its opinion in McCutcheon v FEC. Whittemore had already received three extensions of time in which to file his opening brief. Therefore, his brief does not discuss McCutcheon, except to mention that the opinion had just been released. Any argument about whether the McCutcheon decision affects Whittemore’s argument will certainly be presented in supplemental briefs. The case is Whittemore v USA, 13-10515. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the news about this case.
The Tennessean, Nashville’s daily newspaper, has this story about the April 1 defeat of SB 1091, the bill that would have lowered the petition for a newly-qualifying party from 2.5% of the last gubernatorial vote (over 40,000 signatures) to exactly 2,500 signatures.