On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed the 3-judge U.S. District Court decision in Republican National Committee v Federal Election Commission, 09-1287.  This case challenged part of the McCain-Feingold law that regulates contributions to political parties and spending by political parties.  The Republican Party in this case was not trying to get the limits on political party contributions and expenditures entirely struck down; instead the party was trying to carve out certain kinds of contributions and spending from under the thumb of the law.

Professor Rick Hasen has these thoughts as the top item in Election Law blog.  He says that perhaps the reason Justices Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts voted not to hear the case is that the case is not a straightforward attack on the constitutionality of the limits on political party campaign finance.  Three justices, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy, did vote to hear the case, but the Court won’t take a case without four votes to hear it.

Since the California primary election on June 8, this blog has generally avoided posting links to commentary about California’s Proposition 14,  because so much of that recent commentary just rehashes what has already been said in the last few months.  However, this Atascadero News editorial about Proposition 14 makes a somewhat new point.

U.S. District Court Judge Roberto A. Lange will hold a hearing in Constitution Party of South Dakota v Nelson on July 16, at 3 p.m.  This is the case that challenges the number of signatures needed for a member of a small qualified party to get on that party’s primary ballot.  South Dakota requires 250 signatures for Constitution Party members this year to run for statewide office, and only registered party members may sign.  The Constitution Party only has 345 registered members in the state.  Judge Lange is an Obama appointee.  UPDATE:  this hearing has been changed from July 16 to July 15.

The South Dakota law is peculiar.  If the Constitution Party had polled at least 8,388 votes for Governor in November 2006, then its members running in 2010 for statewide office would only need 84 signatures of party members.  But because the Constitution Party only polled 4,010 votes in November 2006 for Governor, it is treated as a “new” party and “new” parties have a more difficult primary petition requirement.

The Libertarian Party won a lawsuit on this same issue in South Dakota in 2000, but that lawsuit was won on statutory construction grounds.  In 2007 the legislature changed the law’s wording, so now the same issue must be fought all over again, on constitutional grounds this time.