On November 1, a Superior Court in San Luis Obispo County, California, declared three California election laws unconstitutional. Section 7210 requires new members of a Democratic Party county central committee to swear that they are not a member of any party or organization that advocates the overthrow of the government by force or violence or other unlawful means. Section 7408 was identical, except that it applied to Republicans; Section 7655 was identical, except that it applied to members of the American Independent Party.

The lawsuit had been filed in 2011 by John Barta, a member of the Democratic County Central Committee. Originally the state had defended the constitutionality of the laws, but in October 2013 it switched its position and agreed that the laws are unconstitutional. The court ruling declares the laws unconstitutional, but the court declined to order the state to notify election officials in each county not to enforce the laws. Presumably California county election officials know about this decision and will not try to enforce the laws.

In 2012, the legislature had passed AB 1200, which said that the loyalty oaths should be administered by party officials, not county election officials. The action of the legislature in 2012 implies that the legislature still felt these loyalty oaths should be preserved, because otherwise one would think that the legislature, having noticed the oaths, would have repealed them. Here is the eight-page decision, which is mostly about whether or not the Secretary of State should be ordered to notify county election officials about the result.

The California election code never required oaths for members of the other qualified parties. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

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.

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.