On September 28, Righthaven lost its second lawsuit this month, this time in Colorado. A U.S. District Court Judge ruled that when Righthaven bought the copyright to a newspaper photograph that many blogs reproduced, Righthaven did not simultaneously win the right to sue other media that used the picture. Here is the decision, which is Righthaven v Wolf and It Makes Sense Blog. A few weeks ago, Righthaven had lost in U.S. District Court in Nevada. Thanks to How Appealing for the link.
Southampton, New York, has partisan town elections on November 8, 2011. This news story says that the town’s Republican Party is miffed at two Republican nominees, because they accepted the cross-nomination of the Democratic Party. So, the party is sending out campaign literature featuring a photo of all the party’s nominees, except that the original picture included the two Republicans who have angered the party, and the original picture has been altered to erase the images of those two candidates.
On the afternoon of September 27, the Colorado Supreme Court heard oral argument in Riddle v Ritter, 11-sa-12. The issue is whether a Colorado law, passed in 2004, violates the Colorado Constitution. The law says individuals may contribute $400 per year to candidates for the legislature who are nominated by primary, but only $200 per year to candidates for the legislature who get on the general election ballot by petition, or by being nominated in convention. In effect, the law gives higher contribution limits to Democrats and Republicans, relative to virtually everyone else. See this story.
The plaintiff, Joelle Riddle, is the individual who wanted to give $400 to an independent write-in candidate for the legislature, Kathleen Curry. Curry, an incumbent, was defeated for re-election in 2010 in a close election. She came close to winning, even though she was forced to be a write-in candidate in the general election. She couldn’t get on the ballot as an independent because she had changed her registration from “Democrat” to “independent” less than a year before the 2010 primary. The hearing seemed to go well for Riddle and Curry. This case had began in U.S. District Court, but that court had it removed to the State Supreme Court because it involved interpreting the State Constitution.
On September 13, the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (which is the name of the body formerly called the State Board of Elections) approved letting petitions be e-mailed to individuals who ask for them. Furthermore, the organization promoting the petition would be permitted to electronically add the requester’s postal address to the blank petition. Then, the voter could print out the petition form at home, sign it, and mail it in to the proponents. See this story. The vote was 5-1.
However, on September 27, a legislative committee held a hearing on the Board’s new policy, and a majority of legislators seemed to feel the Board should not take this action on its own, but should submit the idea to a higher government body that includes the Governor. If that happens, chances are that the policy will be vetoed, because the new policy makes it easier to recall the Governor. See this story. Thanks to Political Wire for the latter link.
Wisconsin does not have the initiative process.
This Washington Post article says that four Democratic members of Congress from California may not have followed Federal Election Commission rules that require safeguards for campaigns, to prevent embezzlement or other dishonest activity by campaign treasurers. Federal rules say large checks written on campaign accounts must be signed by two individuals, not one. Also the rules say the person who writes the checks is supposed to be someone other than the person who reads campaign bank statements. Thanks to Political Activity Law for the link.
