On October 22, Sarah Palin urged people in New York’s 23rd U.S. House district to vote for the Conservative Party nominee on November 3, 2009, Doug Hoffman. See Palin’s facebook page here.
9
On October 6, Durham, North Carolina, held the first round in non-partisan city council elections. In the 2nd ward, Matt Drew, a registered Libertarian, placed second in a five-person race, with 12.5% of the vote. That qualified him for a spot on the November 3, 2009 run-off election. However, because the incumbent placed first with 59.5% of the vote, Drew is still a definite underdog. See this story in the October 23 Herald Sun. Thanks to Eric Dondero for this news.
On October 21, a group that opposes Washington state’s R-71 (the November 2009 ballot measure on civil unions) filed a federal lawsuit against certain state campaign finance laws. One law requires the disclosure of names and addresses of everyone who contributes as much as $25 to a committee formed to support or oppose ballot measures. Another law requires similar information, plus the occupation, employer’s name, and employer’s address, for people who contribute as much as $100. Finally, the lawsuit challenges the law that makes it illegal for anyone to give more than $5,000 to a campaign for or against an initiative during the 21 days preceding an election. The case is Family PAC v Reed, C09-5662, western district.
If this lawsuit wins quick injunctive relief, of course, both sides on the measure might benefit.
On October 22, the 9th circuit issued this 21-page explanation of why, on October 15, it had reversed the U.S. District Court in Washington state and had given permission to Washington’s Secretary of State to release the names and addresses of people who signed the R-71 Referendum petition.
The 9th Circuit said that petitions aren’t private anyway, because the circulators can see who signed. So can certain employees of the Secretary of State’s office, because those employees must check the petitions for validity. Also, because petition sheets contain 20 lines for signatures, someone who signs any particular sheet may glance at the names and addresses of other people who had already signed that sheet.
The next stage in this lawsuit, Doe v Reed, will undoubtedly be that the proponents of privacy will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the 9th Circuit’s opinion. In the meantime, because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s order earlier this week, while the case is pending, the names and addresses will not be released.
The argument that the names and addresses are not private because they aren’t completely private is not persuasive. There is a huge difference between having perhaps a dozen strangers see one’s name and addresses on a petition, and having one’s name and address posted on an internet site. By analogy, census data is private, yet anyone interviewed by a census employee knows that the census employee will see the information. Also, in a petition like the R-71 petition, which was circulated in many churches, a signer may know that the particular sheet he or she signed is not being circulated before the general public, but only among other attendees of that church. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for this news.
In June 2010, California voters will be voting on a ballot measure to provide public funding for candidates for Secretary of State, starting in the 2014 election. A Lake Research Partners poll, just released, shows that the measure now enjoys the support of 63% of the voters, with 22% opposed and 16% undecided. See this story. The story summarizes the measure and says candidates need small contributions from 7,500 voters in order to receive public funding. The story does not mention that independent candidates would need small contributions from 15,000 voters to receive any public funding. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for the link.