Libertarian Party Lawsuit Against Campaign Finance Ban on Big Bequests to Political Parties Gets a 3-Judge Court

Posted on by March 24, 2011
Reply

On March 24, U.S. District Court Judge Robert L. Wilkins granted the Libertarian Party’s request for a 3-judge court in Libertarian National Committee v Federal Election Commission. This is the case which challenges the McCain-Feingold limit on individuals giving more than $30,800 to a national committee of a political party, in the special context of bequests from deceased donors.

The McCain-Feingold law provides that constitutional challenges to any part of the law should be handled by a 3-judge court, unless the original judge who gets the case thinks it is utterly without merit. The case arose when Tennessee resident Raymond Burrington died in 2007, leaving $217,734 to the Libertarian National Committee. The law won’t permit the party to receive this money now. Instead the law and regulations require that the money sit in a bank account, and the party can only withdraw $30,800 per year from the account. Before the McCain-Feingold law passed, it was legal for any individual to give an unlimited amount of money to a national committee of a political party.

Idaho Bill Setting Up Registration by Party Expected by Friday, March 25

Posted on by March 23, 2011
1

According to this story, a bill will probably be introduced on Friday, March 25, setting up a system in which voters register into political parties. The legislators who are drafting this bill probably are unaware that several courts have ruled that voters must be permitted to register into an unqualified party. The story mentions that voters will be allowed to register into the Libertarian and Constitution Parties (which are both ballot-qualified). This implies that voters won’t be able to register into unqualified parties, such as the Green Party.

The Second Circuit and the Tenth Circuit have both ruled that voters must be allowed to register into active unqualified parties. Similar decisions have been made by a U.S. District Court in Iowa, and by New Jersey state courts.

Washington, California Ponder Elections for Political Party Office

Posted on by March 23, 2011
9

California and Washington are among the states in which qualified political parties choose party officers at public elections. In Washington state, Precinct Committee Officers are elected from each precinct at the general election. However, a few months ago, a U.S. District Court struck down Washington state’s system of letting all the voters choose party officers for each party.

In response, the Washington House passed HB 1860 on March 5. It provides that Precinct Committee Officers should be elected simultaneously with the presidential primary in May. The bill also expands their terms of office from two years to four years, which is necessary, because, obviously, presidential primaries are held only every four years. HB 1860 had a hearing in the Senate Government Operations and Elections Committee on March 22. The Committee will hold an executive session on March 24 to vote on the bill. The bill has substantial opposition, and the margin when the bill was in the House was 53-44. An alternative idea is to simply abolish these elections and let parties choose their officers in meetings.

In California, for many decades qualified political parties have chosen county central committee members at the June primary. There is no bill to alter that system. However, the California Association of County Election Officials (CACEO) is conducting a public relations campaign to persuade the legislature to abolish these elections. See this story.

Ironically, however, Proposition 14, passed in June 2010, stands as a legal barrier to abolishing these elections. Proposition 14 amended the California Constitution. Before it passed, the Constitution did not mention elections for county central committee. The old Constitution said, “The Legislature shall provide for primary elections for partisan offices, including an open presidential primary.” The new Constitutional provision says, “The Legislature shall provide for partisan elections for presidential candidates, and political party and party central committees, including an open presidential primary.” (note: “open presidential primary”, as defined by the California Constitution, means a system in which the Secretary of State places presidential candidates on the ballot automatically if they are mentioned in the news media; this is another example of the many definitions of “open primary”).

Florida Bill to Prevent Out-of-State Circulators Advances

Posted on by March 22, 2011
3

On March 21, the Florida Senate Rules Subcommittee on Ethics and Elections passed SB 1504 by a vote of 7-5. The bill is sponsored by Senator David Simmons (R-Longwood). It bans petitioners from working in Florida if they don’t live in Florida. It also bans paying petitioners “directly or indirectly” on a per-signature basis. It requires petitioners to always carry ID while they are working. It bans anyone from circulating if that person has been convicted of certain crimes during the last five years.

The author must realize that parts of this bill may be invalidated by courts, because he included a severability clause. Florida, Georgia, and Alabama are the states in the Eleventh Circuit. None of those three states currently bans out-of-state circulators, so there are no court precedents in the 11th Circuit on that issue. Circuits that have invalidated residency requirements for circulators are the Second, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits. Certain lower courts in some states in the Third Circuit have also invalidated residency requirements for circulators. The Fourth and Eighth Circuits have upheld residency requirements for circulators. Thanks to BallotBoxNews for this news.