Ralph Nader has written this five-page letter to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, setting forth the story of incompetence and dishonesty by most members of that Court, over the past seven years, in relation to Pennsylvania’s petition-checking procedures and the Court’s handling of the issue.
On June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of Arizona’s program for public funding of candidates. Here is the opinion, which is called Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v Bennett, 10-238. The majority opinion, by Chief Justice John Roberts, is 30 pages. The dissent, by Justice Elena Kagan and signed by the Court’s other three liberals, is 32 pages.
The part of the law struck down provides for extra public funding, for publicly-funded candidates who have privately-financed opponents. The extra public funding kicks in if the privately-financed opponent spends a great deal more money than the amount of money given by the government to the publicly-financed candidate. The extra public funding also is triggered if there is a great deal of independent expenditure made on behalf of the privately-funded candidate.
The majority decision gives little clue as to what the five-member majority thinks about public funding laws that discriminate against independent candidates and the nominees of new parties. Arizona does not discriminate for or against any candidate on the basis of party affiliation or lack of it, so that issue did not arise in the Arizona case. That issue is before the court in the Green Party case from Connecticut. The Arizona dissent does make a brief reference to the independent candidate/minor party issue, however. Page two of Justice Kagan’s dissent sets forth two hypothetical states, both of which have public funding. In her hypothetical, the first state doesn’t have the extra public funding for certain candidates that Arizona’s law has provided. In her second hypothetical state, that state does have Arizona-style extra public funding. But in Kagan’s hypothetical scenario, that second state (which she clearly approves of) “does not discriminate against any candidate or point of view.” This sentence at least tells us that Justice Kagan is aware of the problem that certain states (e.g., Connecticut) do discriminate on the basis of partisan affiliation or lack of it.
The big news will come when the Court says whether it will hear the Connecticut case. That news will probably come Tuesday, June 28. The Connecticut case has been pending before the Court since March. The Court has understandably not said whether it will hear the case, while the Arizona decision was pending. But now we can expect the decision on whether the Court will hear the Connecticut case tomorrow. It was on Conference today, June 27.
On June 25, the Nevada Democratic Party state central committee chose Kate Marshall as its nominee for U.S. House, in the upcoming September special election in the 2nd (northern) district. See this story.
The Nevada Democratic Party is still asking the State Supreme Court to rule that anyone may run, with a party label, in that special election, instead of just party nominees and various independent candidates who obtain 250 valid signatures. However, the fact that the Democratic Party chose a party nominee will probably weaken its lawsuit, and make it more likely that the State Supreme Court will agree with the lower state court that special elections are still partisan elections.
The story of the New York State Senate vote on same-sex marriage on the evening of June 24 has been well-reported. Many news stories, including this one, mention that the Conservative Party of New York says it will not cross-endorse any Republican State Senator who voted in favor of the bill.
Two of the four Republican State Senators who voted in favor of the bill are in close districts, and in 2010 they needed the Conservative Party vote. In the 55th district in Rochester, James Alesi’s margin over his Democratic opponent was 6,862 votes, and Alesi enjoyed the support of the Conservative and Independence Parties. He received 7,970 votes on the Conservative line and 3,914 on the Independence line.
In the 60th district near Buffalo, Mark Grisanti’s margin over his Democratic opponent was 519 votes. Grisanti received 4,368 votes on the Conservative line. The Independence Party did not contest this district.
Of course, in 2012, the district boundaries will have been redrawn, so what happened in 2010 doesn’t necessarily mean a great deal for the next election.
Political science Professor John E. Seery, who teaches at Pomona College and who also has just finished a year as a visiting professor at Princeton, has published “Too Young to Run? A Proposal for an Age Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” The book is published by Penn State Press. He summarizes his argument here in the Huffington Post.
He is the author of three other books, and is age 53.
