Nevada Court Says Boulder City Council Should Not Have Sued Proponents of Initiatives; Tells City to Pay Attorneys' Fees

Posted on by April 1, 2011
2

On April 1, a Nevada state court in Las Vegas ruled that Boulder City’s government, which opposes two local initiatives that the voters passed last year, should not have sued the proponents of those initiatives, if it wanted a court ruling on whether the initiatives are valid or not. The case is City of Boulder City v Jensen, no. 629989.

The voters had passed an initiative imposing term limits of twelve years on members of appointed city boards. The voters had also passed a measure saying the city council could not borrow more than $1,000,000 without voter approval. The city council believes both initiatives are invalid because these topics are not subject to the initiative process. But the city could have filed a lawsuit to overturn the initiatives, without actually suing the proponents, the judge ruled. The judge ordered the city to pay attorneys fees to the proponents, of $10,000. However, she stayed her ruling, to give the city time to appeal that to the State Supreme Court.

U.S. District Court Judge Upholds Extra Public Funding in Wisconsin State Supreme Court Races

Posted on by April 1, 2011
1

On March 31, U.S. District Court Judge William M. Conley upheld Wisconsin’s public funding law for candidates for State Supreme Court Justice. Here is the 39-page opinion. The case is Wisconsin Right to Life PAC v Brennan, 09-cv-764, western district. Wisconsin holds non-partisan elections for State Supreme Court Justice in April of odd years. A fierce contest is being held next week, between incumbent Justice David Prosser and challenger (and Assistant Attorney General) Joanne Kloppenburg.

The Wisconsin law provides for extra public funding for publicly-funded candidates, if outside groups spend a great deal of money expressly advocating his or her defeat. The lawsuit challenged this extra public funding, not the public funding program itself. The judge upheld the extra public funding, because he found that the need to insure that judicial elections are free from any appearance of bias or corruption is stronger than the need in elections for legislative or executive offices. Also, the extra public funding only applies when the independent expenditures expressly urge voters to vote for or against any particular candidate; the extra public funding doesn’t apply to independent expenditures that comment on candidates but don’t say “vote for” or “vote against”. Finally, the judge upheld the law because the amount of independent expenditures needed to trigger the extra public funding is so great, that the provision is unlikely to be used in any event. Thanks to Rick Hasen of ElectionLawBlog for the news.

California Secretary of State Approves Political Body Status for Americans Elect

Posted on by April 1, 2011
10

On March 24, the California Secretary of State determined that Americans Elect may qualify as a political body in California. A “political body” in California is a group that has identified its officers, and which says that it is trying to qualify as a political party.

By contrast, in 1995, a former California Secretary of State had ruled that the Independence Party could not qualify as a political body in California. The law says that a new party’s name “shall not be so similar to the name of an existing party so as to mislead the voters, and shall not conflict with that of any existing party or political body that has previously filed notice.” The American Independent Party has been qualified in California since 1968.

The Secretary of State had also, earlier this year, approved political body status for American Third Position. Back in 1896, the California Supreme Court had ruled that the National Democratic Party was permitted to use that name, despite the fact that the Democratic Party was on the ballot.

Americans Elect is now trying to qualify as a political party in California with the petition procedure, which is so difficult that it has not been used since 1947-1948. It requires a number of signers equal to 10% of the last gubernatorial vote.