On September 17, a hearing was held in San Francisco Superior Court in Field v Bowen, over whether Judge Curtis Karnow’s order of August 1 could be reconsidered. The court order of August 1 said that the six plaintiffs (four voters and two candidates) who had challenged certain details of the California top-two open primary system must pay almost $250,000 to the attorneys for the forces who had intervened in the lawsuit to defend the top-two open primary law.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs had then asked for reconsideration, and that matter was set for a hearing in early October. But then, with very little notice, an attorney for the intervenors filed a document with the court, saying the reconsideration hearing should be canceled because the request for reconsideration is flawed. Judge Karnow started to hear the matter, but attorneys for the plaintiffs asked him to recuse himself. He did so. The matter was then transferred to another judge, who ruled after just a few minutes that the reconsideration hearing may proceed in October. The courtroom was filled to its capacity (45 chairs) with members and supporters of the Green, Libertarian, and Peace & Freedom Parties.

The issues in the original case were whether it is constitutional for a state to print labels on the ballots, showing which parties the candidates are registered in, for some candidates but not other candidates. Also, the case questioned whether the state could legitimately print write-in space on the ballot and yet also provide that write-in votes can never be counted. These two provisions of the law were upheld last year in the State Appeals Court, and the only remaining issue in this case is whether the people who sued should be required to pay the attorneys for the intervenors, who are Californians for an Open Primary, the California Independent Voters Project, and Abel Maldonado, former legislator and former Lieutenant Governor. Technically, the first two intervenors asked for attorneys fees, but Maldonado did not. However, the August 1 order erroneously states that all three intervenors had asked for the attorneys fees.

Ralph Nader filed an amicus curiae on the side of the plaintiffs, as did Fairvote, the National Lawyers Guild, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Steve Hill.

According to the New York State Board of Elections, the ballot-qualified Independence Party has decided not to nominate any presidential candidate. This is the first time a ballot-qualified party in New York has declined to nominate anyone for President since 1984, when the Right to Life Party had declined to nominate anyone for President.

Before that, the last time in New York state was when the Conservative Party nominated no one. However, the only reason the New York Conservative Party ran no one for President in 1968 was that the party wanted to cross-endorse the Republican nominee (Richard Nixon) but the New York Republican Party refused to let the Conservative Party cross-endorse the Republican slate. At the time the Republican Party was very hostile to the Conservative Party, and wanted to injure the Conservative Party by forcing it to leave its presidential spot on the ballot blank.

The New York Independence Party nominated John McCain in 2008. In prior years it nominated various independent or minor party presidential candidates (Ralph Nader in 2004, John Hagelin in 2000, Ross Perot in 1996).

It has now been 18 months since the Libertarian Party National Committee sued the Federal Election Commission, over the FEC’s refusal to let the Libertarian Party have full access to a bequest made to the party. The bequest was made by Raymond Burrington, who died on April 26, 2007. He had left $217,734 to the party. The FEC has interpreted federal campaign laws to mean that the party cannot receive the bequest all in one year. Instead, the money can only be given to the party by the estate at the rate of approximately $30,000 per year, because the law limits living donors to giving that much to a national political party every calendar year.

The two sides have been arguing over which court should hear the case. Because the Libertarian Party takes the position that it should be able to use the bequest in support of its nominees for federal office, as well as for general party expenses, the original 3-judge panel appointed earlier was dissolved. The federal campaign law passed in 1974 says “substantial” legal challenges to federal contribution limits to candidates must be heard by an en banc panel of all the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals. If the case is not “substantial”, then a single U.S. District Court Judge can dismiss the case. The two sides have been battling over whether the case presents a “substantial” issue.

The FEC argues the case should be dismissed because no important constitutional rights are at stake, and that “the deceased have no constitutional rights.” The party counters that this case is about the rights of the party to receive the money.

The FEC says if the Libertarian Party wins the case, there is a danger of corruption because wealthy individuals could try to obtain favors from elected members of Congress, and/or from the President, by promising to leave a large bequest to that politician’s political party. Of course, this argument seems to validate the party’s argument that this case is “substantial.”