Political Scientist Suggests U.S. Political System Would Work Better if Campaign Finance was More Party-Centered

Posted on by November 9, 2013
6

The United States is rare in the world for having a campaign finance system that is centered on candidates, rather than parties. In the U.S., for the most part, candidates must take primary responsibility for raising campaign funds. In most democratic countries, parties take on that burden for their nominees. Political Science Professor Raymond J. LaRaja has this article in The Forum. It suggests that U.S. government would work better if campaign finance was more oriented through political parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court is responsible for the current state of federal campaign finance law. The Court has struck down many campaign finance laws, but has left intact the inhibitions on political parties in the McCain-Feingold Law. Political parties have less ability to make independent expenditures than any other type of group. Thanks to The Mischiefs of Faction for the link.

Candidate for Attorney General of the District of Columbia Sues to Require City to Hold Election for that Office

Posted on by November 8, 2013
1

In 2010, the voters of the District of Columbia passed a charter amendment that said, as described on the ballot, that if the measure passed, the first such election for Attorney General of D.C. would be held in 2014. Recently, the city council passed a law delaying the election until a future year. But a candidate who wants to run for that office in 2014 has sued the D.C. city government to force it to hold the election.

The actual charter amendment doesn’t say that the election must be held in 2014. It just says it will be held sometime after January 1, 2014. But the measure as described on the ballot said the first such election would be in 2014. See this story.

Ohio Libertarian Party Sues to Retain its Qualified Party Status for 2014

Posted on by November 8, 2013
9

On November 8, only two days after SB 193 was signed into law, the Ohio Libertarian Party sued to retain its qualified status for 2014 that SB 193 had revoked. Technically, the Ohio Libertarian Party did not file an entire new lawsuit; instead it expanded its existing lawsuit that challenges the residency requirement for circulators that had been filed on September 25, 2013. The case is Libertarian Party of Ohio v Husted, 2:13cv-953, southern district.

The party is asking for a preliminary injunction to retain its May 2014 primary. The amended injunction request points out that some of the Libertarian Party candidates had already completed their petitions to be on the Libertarian Party’s primary ballot, and other Libertarians had already started collecting signatures to be on the primary ballot. The injunction also points out that in Ohio, parties acquire members by having their own primary. Ohio registration forms don’t ask individuals to choose a party. The only party membership list any party ever has in Ohio is the list of voters who choose to vote in that party’s primary.

The case is in front of U.S. District Court Judge Michael H. Wilson, a Bush Jr. appointee. SB 193 passed with no urgency clause, so it doesn’t go into effect until February 5, 2014. UPDATE: here is a newspaper story about the lawsuit from the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Here is another story about it, in the Columbus Dispatch.

Alabama Oral Argument Set in Special Election Ballot Access Case

Posted on by November 8, 2013
Reply

U.S. District Court Judge Mark Fuller will hear Hall v Bennett on November 13, Wednesday, at 1:30 p.m., in Montgomery. This is the case over whether independent candidate James Hall should be on the December 17 ballot for U.S. House, district one. Hall argues that because the normal petitioning period was so much shorter than the period for regular elections, the number of signatures should have been cut, or else the September deadline should have been extended.

Hall submitted 2,835 signatures but the state rejected the petition because the normal petition for this district requires 5,938 signatures. The state didn’t even check his petition.