See this Uncovered Politics post, which links to news stories that the Purple PAC will make independent expenditures of at least $300,000 to promote Rob Sarvis, the Libertarian nominee for Virginia Governor. The money, or most of it, will be used for television advertising.
Meanwhile, the October 25 New York Times has this lengthy story about the Virginia race, and manages to avoid any mention of Sarvis whatsoever.
On October 21, the Colorado Supreme Court released a full opinion in In re Interrogatory Propounded by Governor Hickenlooper, 13-SA-214. The Colorado Constitution says that a voter who fails to vote on whether or not to recall an official may not vote on who should fill the vacancy created by the recall. The Colorado Supreme Court invalidated this part of the state Constitution. The vote was 5-2. Here is the opinion.
The Court had already decided this issue before the recent recall elections for two State Senators, but only now has the Court explained its reasoning. The decision will be a good precedent within Colorado in the future, because it stresses the freedom for voters to vote freely.
On October 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd circuit, enjoined a New York state law that doesn’t permit anyone to contribute more than $150,000 to a committee that is making independent expenditures for or against a candidate. An individual wanted to contribute $200,000 to a group that intends to make independent expenditures on behalf of the Republican candidate for Mayor of New York city, Joseph Lhota.
The case is New York Progress and Protection PAC v Walsh, 13-3889. The three judges who signed the order are Jacob Dennis (a Bush Sr. appointee), Raymond Lohier (an Obama appointee), and John Koeltl (a Clinton appointee). Here is the order. The U.S. District Court had refused to enjoin the law, saying it isn’t good policy to change the rules so close to an election. Thanks to Rick Hasen and Thomas Jones for the link.
On October 24, the Arizona State Court of Appeals issued this explanation for last week’s order, which kept the old lower Arizona campaign contribution limits in effect. The 2013 legislature had passed a bill greatly increasing the amount of money an individual may donate to a candidate for state office. Those new limits are now enjoined. The State Court of Appeals decision says that the bill is probably unconstitutional because the Arizona Constitution says that bills that affect the state’s public financing system can only be passed by a three-fourths vote of each house of the Legislature. The legislature had argued that the contribution limits are not intrinsically part of the public funding program, but the court disagreed.
The court did not give any guidance on how to handle the problem that some 2014 candidates have already received campaign donations in excess of the old limits. The case is Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v Brain, 1 ca-SA-13-0239. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
U.S. District Court Judge William Haynes will hear Tomasik v Goins, 3:13cv-1118, on October 31 at 3:30 p.m. in Nashville, Tennessee. This is the Libertarian Party’s lawsuit to get on the ballot for the upcoming special legislative election in Memphis in December. The candidate, James Tomasik, will definitely be on the ballot, because he was able to complete the independent candidate petition, which only requires 25 signatures. The issue is whether he should have the label “Libertarian” on the ballot next to his name.
The Libertarian Party has never been a ballot-qualified party in Tennessee, but the law on how newly-qualifying parties get on the ballot was struck down on June 17, 2013. The state is appealing that decision to the Sixth Circuit. The new Libertarian case, which was filed on October 9, 2013, is especially strong because Tennessee doesn’t actually have any statutory procedure for a party to get on the ballot in a special election. Once the special election is announced, it is already too late for a newly-qualifying party to get on the ballot.
