On July 10, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the individuals and groups who challenged Nevada’s “None of these candidates” ballot option lack standing. Therefore, the lawsuit is dismissed. Townley v Miller, 12-16881. Here is the 17-page opinion.

The basis for the challenge had been that Nevada discriminates against voters who vote for “None of these candidates”, because even if “None of these candidates” gets the most votes, it has no effect, and whichever candidate in that race had more votes than any other candidates still wins, even if “None” outpolled that candidate.

The Ninth Circuit said the voters who intended to vote for “None” don’t have standing because the relief they are asking for makes them worse off. All the plaintiffs had asked for a ruling that “None” should be taken off the ballot, instead of asking for a ruling that “None” actually defeat all the candidates if “None” gets the most votes. The decision says if these voters got what they say they want, their voting rights would be shrunk, not expanded. At oral argument, the attorneys for the Republicans had argued that the legislature wouldn’t have passed “None” back in 1976 if it had been binding, so therefore the Republican Party had no choice but to ask that “None” be removed from the ballot. The decision doesn’t acknowledge this point.

The Ninth Circuit said the two Republican nominees for presidential elector, and the Nevada Republican Party, do have some elements of standing, because it is plausible that having “None” on the ballot subtracts from votes that would otherwise go to Republicans. However, the presidential elector candidates and the Republican Party still don’t have standing because the theory that “None” is unconstitutional (because it isn’t binding) is not related to the harm done to the Republicans. In theory, a new lawsuit, filed by voters who said they intend to vote for “None” and who want “None” to be binding, might still conceivably win.

The newest version of “Vital Statistics on Congress” is available free on-line at this link. The work is a joint product of the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute. The Chapters include: (1) Demographics of Members of Congress; (2) Congressional Elections; (3) Campaign Finance in Congressional Elections; (4) Congressional Committee Data; (5) Congressional staff and operating expenses; (6) Legislative Productivity in Congress; (7) Congressional Action on the Federal Budget; (8) Political polarization in Congress and Changing Voter Alignments.

The chapter on Congressional Elections has these contents: (1) Turnout in Presidential and House elections 1930-2012; (2) Popular Vote and House Seats Won by Party 1946-2012; (3) Net Party Gains in House and Senate Seats, 1046-2012; (4) Losses by the President’s Party in Midterm Elections 1862-2010; (5) House Seats that changed party 1954-2012; (6) Senate Seats that changed party 1954-2012; (7) House incumbents Retired, Defeated, or Reelected 1946-2012; (8) Senate Incumbents Retired, Defeated, or Reelected 1946-2012; (9) House and Senate Retirements by Party 1930-2012; (10) Defeated House incumbents 1946-2012; (11) Defeated Senate incumbents 1946-2012; (12) House Elections won with 60% of Major party vote 1956-2012; (13) Senate Elections won with 60% of Major party vote 1956-2012; (14) Marginal Races Among Members of the Congress Elected in 2012; (15) A summary of the number of defeated incumbents in primaries and general elections; (16) The number of US House districts that voted for one party for President and another party for Congress, 1900-2012; (17) The number of US House districts carried by the winner of the presidential election 1952-2012; (18) Shifts in Democratic Major Party vote for U.S. House 1956-2010, excluding shifts after redistricting years; (19) What percentage of people who identify in public opinion polls with one major party voted for the other major party in presidential and congress elections 1956-2010.

Thanks to Michael Malbin of the Campaign Finance Institute for the link.

As previously reported, last month a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., certified the Libertarian Party’s lawsuit over bequests to political parties to the full panel of active judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. That case is Libertarian National Committee v Federal Election Commission.

The issue arose in 2007, when the party learned it was the beneficiary of a bequest from an individual who had not even told the party that he was leaving a large gift to the party in his will. Federal campaign laws do not permit anyone to give more than $32,500 to a national committee of a political party in any calendar year. Therefore, the federal law prevented the party from receiving the bequest at once; federal law said the money had to remain in a bank account and the party was to receive part of it each year. The party sued the FEC in 2011, arguing that there is no fear of corruption when a party receives a large contribution from someone who is no longer living.

Federal law says that challenges to the constitutionality of the law that is being challenged must be settled by all the full-time judges of the D.C. Circuit. The U.S. District Court Judge who certified the case to the full appellate panel narrowed the scope of the question. The party wanted the case to be a general attack on contribution limits concerning deceased individuals, but the U.S. District Court Judge narrowed the scope to instances like this one, when the deceased individual had not told the party about his will. Now the party wants the full panel of appellate judges to consider the broader question as well as the narrower one. But the FEC is fighting to keep the case focused only on the narrower question. The final brief on the scope of the question will probably be filed by the end of July, and then the Appeals Court will decide whether to settle the broader question or just the narrower question.

The reason it matters if the deceased individual had told the party about his or her will is that, according to the government, an individual might still try to bribe a political party if he or she told the party that he would leave a large bequest, in order to corruptly persuade the party to take certain actions while the individual was still alive. But this scenario is obviously impossible if the individual did not even tell the party what is in the will.