The U.S. Supreme Court will hold oral arguments in McCutcheon v Federal Election Commission, 12-536, on October 8, 2013. This is the case in which the Republican Party and Shaun McCutcheon challenge the federal law that limits how much an individual may contribute to all federal candidates in any two-year period. The lower courts had upheld the law. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.
On July 22, the North Carolina Senate amended HB 589, an omnibus election law bill, to include a repeal of public funding for judicial candidates, and a repeal of the state income-tax checkoff that lets taxpayers send a small donation to the political party of the taxpayer’s choice. The bill already contained many other provisions that will make the voting process more difficult for many voters. See this article, describing many of the provisions of the bill.
The bill also revises ballot access for presidential primaries. Current law requires a presidential candidate to have qualified for primary season matching funds, in order to be on a presidential primary ballot without having to submit a petition. The bill would provide that any candidate generally discussed in national news media should be on the presidential primary ballot, regardless of whether he or she has qualified for primary season matching funds.
The bill repeals the straight-ticket device. It also changes the order of parties on the ballot. Current law says that parties with registration of at least 5% are on the ballot in alphabetical order of the party name, which means the Democratic Party is always listed first. The bill changes that, so that among parties with registration of at least 5%, the party that last elected the Governor is listed first.
The bill makes it somewhat easier for a candidate to get on a primary ballot without paying a filing fee. Current law requires 10,000 signatures for statewide office, for candidates who don’t wish to pay the filing fee. If the candidate is a member of a newly-qualifying party, in order to avoid the filing fee the candidate needs either 10,000 signatures of any registered voters (regardless of party membership) or 10% of party members, whichever is greater. The bill lowers the 10,000 signatures for newly-qualifying parties to 8,000 signatures or 5% of party members. For district office, current law is at 10% and 200 signatures, but the bill lowers the 10% to 5%. The only practical difference this change makes is that, if the bill passes, it lessens the burden for members of new parties who want to run for U.S. House and who wish to avoid the filing fee.
The bill is expected to pass in the next two days, before the legislature adjourns.
The web page for the 1787 Party is now on-line. See it at www.1787forAmerica.org.
The Rhode Island legislature adjourned on July 3. Only three election law bills passed this year. As previously reported, the National Popular Vote bill, SB 346, was signed into law on July 11. The only other two election law bills that became law are one that says people standing in line outside the polling place at 8 p.m. will be allowed to vote; and one that says mail ballots must be received by the end of election day in order to be validly cast.
The Moderate Party made a superhuman effort to try to pass the bill that eliminates the straight-ticket device, but the bill did not pass, because the Speaker of the State House was personally opposed to the bill.
On July 17, supporters of Arizona’s public funding law for state office asked the State Supreme Court to invalidate a bill passed earlier this year by the Arizona legislature. The case is Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v Bennett, cv13-0233-SA.
The bill raises campaign contribution limits to candidates for state office. For instance, it raises limits to legislative candidates from $440 to $4,000. Supporters of public funding dislike such high contribution limits, because the higher limits will probably motivate many candidates to ignore the public funding program and instead opt for private funding. The basis for the lawsuit is technical. The lawsuit argues that Arizona initiatives may not be altered by the legislature unless the legislature alters the initiative with a 3/4ths vote in each House. Opponents of the lawsuit will argue that the campaign limits aren’t really a part of the initiative that first established the public funding program back in 1998. Chances seem high that the Supreme Court will hear this case.
