The Libertarian Party national committee meets in New Orleans on November 20-21, and will choose the city that hosts the national convention of 2012. The committee will also set the dates of that convention.
2
Mike DeBonis, a Washington Post columnist, uses his column to explore the idea that the District of Columbia should use all-mail voting to fill a vacancy in the Washington city council. See his column here. He promotes the idea as a way to save tax dollars.
On November 2, U.S. District Court Judge Philip S. Gutierrez issued a 6-page ruling, declining to strike down some of California’s residency requirements for petitioners, on the grounds that the state says it doesn’t enforce those laws anyway. The judge gave the plaintiffs until November 23 to amend their complaint, but to prevail, the plaintiffs must find anyone who was ever told that he or she can’t circulate outside his or her home district, or some candidate who was told that. Also if anyone ever submitted any petitions that were rejected because of the out-of-district law, that person could also be added to the complaint.
The case is Libertarian Party of Los Angeles County v Bowen, central district, cv10-2488. When the same issue arose in early 2010 for the Green Party of Arizona’s lawsuit on this same point, the judge in the Arizona case ruled that even though Arizona made the same defense (that it wouldn’t enforce the law), that did not save the law from being declared unconstitutional. The problem with a state saying that it won’t enforce the law is that most people won’t know that. There is no notice on any California official web page that says the residency requirement for candidate petitions is not enforced. The petition form forces people to sign a statement that says they are residents of the district.
On November 2, U.S. District Court Judge Philip S. Gutierrez issued a 6-page ruling, declining to strike down some of California’s residency requirements for petitioners, on the grounds that the state says it doesn’t enforce those laws anyway. The judge gave the plaintiffs until November 23 to amend their complaint, but to prevail, the plaintiffs must find anyone who was ever told that he or she can’t circulate outside his or her home district, or some candidate who was told that. Also if anyone ever submitted any petitions that were rejected because of the out-of-district law, that person could also be added to the complaint.
The case is Libertarian Party of Los Angeles County v Bowen, central district, cv10-2488. When the same issue arose in early 2010 for the Green Party of Arizona’s lawsuit on this same point, the judge in the Arizona case ruled that even though Arizona made the same defense (that it wouldn’t enforce the law), that did not save the law from being declared unconstitutional. The problem with a state saying that it won’t enforce the law is that most people won’t know that. There is no notice on any California official web page that says the residency requirement for candidate petitions is not enforced. The petition form forces people to sign a statement that says they are residents of the district.
The U.S. Supreme Court will probably decide on November 23, Tuesday, whether to hear McComish v Bennett, 10-239. This is the case involving public funding of state campaigns in Arizona. The issue is the constitutionality of extra public funding, for publicly funded candidates who have very well-funded opponents who are not using public funding.
The same issue has arisen this year in cases involving public funding from Maine, Connecticut, and Florida. The Court doesn’t usually hold conferences on Tuesdays, but that is Thanksgiving week. It is not clear whether the Court’s decision will be made known on Wednesday, November 24, or the following Monday, November 29.