Deaborn, Michigan, Must Pay Attorneys Fees of $103,402 in Sidewalk Leafleting Case

On January 27, a U.S. Magistrate Judge in Detroit awarded attorneys’ fees of $103,401.96 to the plaintiffs in Saieg v City of Dearborn. The issue had been whether the city could ban leafleting on public sidewalks during the Arab International Festival, a large annual event that usually attracts 250,000 people. The 6th circuit had ruled on May 26, 2011 that the city’s ban on letting individuals hand out leaflets on the public sidewalks at or near the event is unconstitutional. The 6th circuit was 2-1, and the city did not appeal.

The plaintiffs had wanted to hand out leaflets that attempt to persuade Arabs who are not already Christian to consider becoming Christian. The city had said the plaintiffs were free to have a booth at the festival, but the plaintiffs found that unsatisfactory because they said social pressure at the festival prevented the vast majority of Muslim attendees from approaching the booth. Thanks to Eric Dondero for this news.

Democratic National Committee Says Randall Terry Should Not be Considered a Bona Fide Candidate for Broadcast Purposes

Randall Terry is a long-time opponent of legal abortion. He has gained a place on the Democratic presidential primary ballot in some states this year. Generally he is on the ballot in states which require a filing fee as the only condition for being on the ballot. He is also an official write-in candidate in certain other Democratic presidential primaries.

As a candidate, federal law protects his right to buy advertising on broadcast media, and that media cannot refuse to sell him time if he can afford it. Also the media cannot censor his message. However, on January 27, the Democratic National Committee declared in this letter that Terry is not a bona fide Democrat, and therefore he should not be allowed the normal rights relating to broadcast media that other candidates receive. Terry wants to air television advertising during the Super Bowl. One television station has already refused, based on the letter from the Democratic National Committee.

This issue gets to the heart of the same issue that is involved with the Rosaland Kurita case in Tennessee, which is pending in the 6th circuit. In 2008 the Tennessee Democratic Party would not recognize Kurita as its nominee for State Senate, even though she had won the primary. How much control does the U.S. Constitution give to political parties over their own nomination process? The U.S. Supreme Court has given the nation conflicting opinions. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news.

Virginia Supreme Court Won’t Block Lawsuit Challenging Legislature’s U.S. House Districting Plan

On January 31, the Virginia Supreme Court refused to derail the lawsuit filed to invalidate the legislature’s U.S. House redistricting plan. The lower state court had said that the plaintiffs have standing. They are charging that the legislature can’t draw U.S. House districts, because the state constitution says the redistricting must be done in the odd year after any census. The 2011 session of the legislature did not pass any U.S. House redistricting plan. See this story.

This makes it very likely that the U.S. House district boundaries won’t be settled for some time. In the meantime, statewide independent and minor party candidates cannot be petitioning, because Virginia has a distribution requirement for statewide petitions. Also, minor party and independent candidates for U.S. House can’t be petitioning either.

The lawsuit is Little v Virginia Board of Elections. In the Supreme Court it is number 120148. In the lower court, in the city of Richmond, it is CL11-5253.

Texas Redistricting Blog Says April 17 is More Likely for Texas Primary than April 3

Texas Redistricting blog here says that an April 17 primary for Texas is more likely than an April 3 primary. If the primary does indeed get moved to April 17, independent presidential candidates will only have 27 days to collect 80,778 valid signatures of voters who didn’t vote in the primaries. It is conceivable that the 3 federal judges within Texas who are hearing the redistricting case will notice the unfairness to independent presidential candidates. If they notice it, they have the authority to change the petition deadline.