On January 21, Quinnipiac Polls released a poll for the presidential election of 2016, assuming that Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee and Chris Christie is the Republican nominee. Respondents were merely asked whether they would vote for one or the other, without acknowledging that the respondent might wish to vote for someone else. The results: 46% Clinton, 38% Christie, 3% volunteered that they would vote for someone else; 5% said they wouldn’t vote; 9% said they didn’t know. Here are the results; scroll down to question seven. Thanks to PoliticalWire for the link.
This January 4, 2014 Pittsburgh Post Gazette story says that Ralph Nader recently withdrew all of his funds out of PNC Bank, amounting to almost $1,100,000. Nader did this because the PNC Bank seized approximately $38,000 of Nader’s funds and gave them to the individuals who challenged his 2004 Pennsylvania ballot access petition. The bank seized the money before Nader’s court challenge to the outcome had even been completed. The money Nader withdrew recently is not his personal property, but the property of various non-profit organizations directed by Nader.
The story says that Nader recently learned that the same law firm that represented the challengers to his petition, is also the law firm for PNC Bank. The bank is headquartered in Pittsburgh, and is the sixth largest bank in the United States. It has branches in 19 states and the District of Columbia. “PNC” stands for “Pittsburgh National Corporation.” Thanks to Eric Davin for the link.
The Center for Public Integrity has this interesting article on how the U.S. Supreme Court decision from four years go, Citizens United v FEC, will help Hillary Clinton if she runs for President in 2016. More generally, the article describes how Democrats in general may benefit from the decision. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
On January 21, the U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed Kostick v Nago, 13-456. This means that the decision of the 3-judge court in this case is considered the law of the land. The issue was whether Hawaii could exclude temporary residents (mainly military and students who came to Hawaii to study from other states) when it calculates the population of U.S. House and legislative districts. The lower court opinion, issued on July 11, 2013, said such a practice does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
On January 6, 2014, U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Olguin ruled that Gary Johnson’s lawsuit against the Commission on Presidential Debates does not belong in his courtroom. Judge Olguin is a judge in Los Angeles. The decision says that Gary Johnson can’t sue the Commission in California because the Commission doesn’t have enough of a presence in California to allow jurisdiction. Olguin is an Obama appointee.
The lawsuit had been filed in California because Johnson’s running mate, James Gray, lives there. But the ruling says that Gray never received as much as 15% in any national poll for vice-president, so Gray’s residency is irrelevant.
The case had been filed in September 2012 because the Johnson campaign had submitted evidence that Johnson is at or above 15% in certain national opinion polls. These polls asked respondents if they prefer President Obama or Gary Johnson, and Johnson received well above 15% in each of them. Because the Commission on Presidential Debate rules only require a candidate to be at or above 15% in national polls, and say nothing about which candidates must be listed in these polls, Johnson argued that he met the CPD’s criteria. However, none of the polls submitted by the Johnson campaign asked about the vice-presidential candidates.
The case in Los Angeles is still alive, because the Judge only removed the Commission on Presidential Debates from the case. The lawsuit had also sued the Democratic and Republican national committees, and they have a significant presence in California, so the lawsuit against them is still alive. The decision says that Johnson should have filed his lawsuit against the CPD in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., where the Commission has its headquarters.
It appears that the remainder of the case will be decided by a jury, and a jury trial is set for January 27, 2014. However, that trial will be postponed. The case number in the central district of California is cv12-1600.