On March 19, the California Senate Elections Committee unanimously passed SB 213, which repeals all residency requirements for petitioners. The Secretary of State, and the organization of county election officials, both sent representatives to the hearing to testify for the bill.
On March 19, U.S. District Court Judge Robert L. Wilkins ruled that the Libertarian Party’s campaign finance case involving a bequest to the party can be certified to the entire panel of U.S. Court of Appeals Judges in the D.C. Circuit. The decision is 28 pages, followed by 20 pages of Findings of Fact.
The question certified to the U.S. Court of Appeals is, “Does imposing annual contribution limits against the bequest of Raymond Groves Burrington violate the First Amendment rights of the Libertarian Party?” This will be the first time any minor party has ever had any election law appeal before all the judges of the D.C. Circuit (excepting cases in which one or both of the major parties were also in the case). Such panels are rare, but the federal campaign law does say that substantial constitutional questions concerning the 1974 Federal campaign finance law must be certified to the full set of judges. The Federal Election Commission had argued that the Libertarian Party’s lawsuit is not substantial enough to go to those judges.
Judge Wilkins disagreed with the way the Libertarian Party had framed the question to be decided by the D.C. Circuit, so he exercised his right to re-frame the question. The Libertarian Party thought the proper question was whether any bequest to a political party, received by the party after the death of the donor, could be restricted. But Judge Wilkins narrowed the question down to this particular case. A very important fact in this case is that Burrington, who left the Libertarian Party $217,734 in his will, had not told the Libertarian Party that he was planning to leave the money to the party. Furthermore, in his entire lifetime, he had only given $25 to the party. This is an important fact, because it shows that (as the decision says) “the anti-corruption interests that would be implicated by allowing the Libertarian National Committee to receive the entire bequest all at once may be minimal.” By contrast, the judge, and others, can imagine a situation in which a dying individual promises to leave a great deal of money to a political party on the condition that the party carry out certain campaign activities that would benefit the individual while he was alive, or might benefit his or her other heirs.
The U.S. Supreme Court will consider on March 29 whether to hear Lepak v City of Irving, Texas, 12-777. The issue is whether the old “one person, one vote” precedents mean that districts should be relatively equal in population, or relatively equal in number of eligible voters. This issue doesn’t normally make a big difference, but it does make a big difference in jurisdictions with a relatively large number of non-citizen residents. The New York Times here covers this case and seems to feel there is a good likelihood the Court will accept the case.
The case started when federal courts required the City of Irving to stop using at-large elections for city council. After the city complied and districts were drawn, on the basis of population, some residents of Irving noted that some of the districts have twice as many registered voters as other districts. They sued to overthrown the equal population districts in favor of districts that have equal numbers of eligible voters. However, the city’s equal-population plan was upheld in U.S. District Court and in the Fifth Circuit.
The Washington Post has this analysis of what is wrong with political parties in the U.S. The writer quoted many well-informed sources. However, no one points out that political parties outside the United States are thriving and exist in every free country with a population of at least 100,000. Other free countries do not regulate political parties nearly as much as the United States does. As a result, in the typical free country in the world, the people are free to form new parties, run their own parties without much government interference, nominate their candidates according to their own procedures, and generally run the campaigns for their own nominees.
Naturally, in the freer environment in other countries, multi-party systems are the rule. Although in Great Britain and Canada two parties are much bigger than all the other parties (which is the original definition of a “two-party system”), they are still multi-party systems because five or more parties have representation in Parliament and win many local partisan elections.
In the United States, parties are tightly constricted in their ability to carry out their duties. This is especially true for parties other than the Democratic and Republican Parties. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
The Connecticut Joint Government Administration & Election Committee has introduced SB 1146, which says, “No candidate who is not enrolled as a member of a party may be endorsed by such party.” The bill’s intent is to abolish fusion, but it goes further, and says no one can be nominated by a party if he or she is not a member of that party.
The fact that the Committee itself has introduced this bill suggests that the leadership of the Democratic majority in the legislature has determined to eliminate fusion. However, the bill is poorly drafted, and would seem to violate what the U.S. Supreme Court said, in dicta, in Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut, 479 U.S. 208, in 1986. The decision says, on page 215, “Were the State to…provide that only Party members might be selected as the Party’s chosen nominees for public office, such a prohibition of potential association with nonmembers would clearly infringe upon the rights of the Party’s members under the First Amendment to organize with like-minded citizens in support of common political goals.”
