On February 26, the Montana House passed HB 229, which relaxes contribution limits. Current law says individuals may not give more than $130 to a legislative candidate, or more than $250 to a candidate for state statewide office other than Governor, or more than $500 to a gubernatorial candidate. The bill raises these limits to $500, $1,000, and $2,500 (the existing law allows the limits to rise with inflation, so the actual current limits are slightly higher than the dollar amounts in the statute).

The bill also eliminates the cap on political party contributions to the party’s own nominees, although that part of the bill only applies to parties that were on the ballot in the last gubernatorial election, so that part of the bill discriminates against newly-qualifying parties.

If the bill is signed into law, that would moot the lawsuit now pending in the 9th circuit over whether the limits are too low. That case is Lair v Bullock, 12-35809. The U.S. District Court had declared the limits unconstitutionally low, but the 9th circuit had stayed the decision a few days later. The 9th circuit has suspended the lawsuit until June 2013, at the request of both sides; presumably this is so everyone can see what the legislature and the Governor do.

On March 6, Oklahoma Republican Party state chair Matt Pinnell said he won’t seek another term as state chair. The Republican Party will choose a new chair at its state convention on April 20. Pinnell has aggressively sought to prevent Republican state legislators from easing Oklahoma ballot access ever since he became state chair in 2010.

On March 6, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs in Los Angeles County Libertarian Party v Bowen have standing to challenge the residency requirement for petition circulators. The nine-page opinion, by Judge Susan Graber, reverses the U.S. District Court, which had said the plaintiffs do not have standing because the Secretary of State says the residency requirement for circulators is not enforced.

This is the first time a minor party has won a case in the Ninth Circuit, except for instances at which the major parties were also in the lawsuit, since 2003. The opinion does not address the constitutionality of the residency requirement for circulators, and it remands the case back to the U.S. District Court to make a decision on the law’s constitutionality. Because the state has already said it doesn’t enforce the law, it is obvious that either the U.S. District Court will now strike down the law, or else the legislature will repeal the residency requirement and the case will be moot. Senate Bill 213, introduced last month, repeals all petitioner residency requirements.

Ironically, on February 8, 2013, a U.S. District Court in Alaska had ruled that a professional petitioner who wants to circulate in Alaska, but who lives in Wisconsin, lacks standing to challenge Alaska’s ban on out-of-state circulators for initiatives. That case is now in the 9th circuit and is Raymond v Fenumiai, 13-35090.