The February 4 issue of The Oklahoma Daily, the student newspaper at the University of Oklahoma, has this editorial calling on the legislature to reform the restrictive state ballot access laws. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for the link.
Reply
During late 2007 and early 2008, there were three cases challenging the date of the Florida presidential primary. The state insisted on holding the primary in January, even though the Democratic National Committee rules said no state could hold such a presidential primary except for New Hampshire.
One of the cases was filed by a Democratic voter against the state of Florida, and argued that the state was disenfranchising Democrats by holding the primary on a date that contradicted the wishes of the party. The case was held moot on October 5, 2009. It was Ausman v Browning, U.S. District Court, northern district, 4:07-cv-519. The case never got a substantive decision, because in the earlier stages of the case, the primary was held before the court could reach a decision.
On January 14, the West Virginia Supreme Court agreed to hear Shepherdstown Observer v Maghan, no. 35446. The issue is whether a newspaper is entitled to see the list of names of people who signed a local initiative petition. The lower court had ruled against the newspaper.
On February 1, the 9th circuit extended the stay in McComish v Bennett. The U.S. District Court in that case had invalidated part of the Arizona public funding law for candidates for state office. The stay means that the law remains intact until the 9th circuit rules on the merits of the case. The 9th circuit is expediting the case and it will be heard in April and decided quickly. Here is the seven-page order. The vote was 2-1. The dissenting judge would have removed the stay. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
The Center for American Progress has this analysis of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. The analysis, written by Alex DeMots, shows that as a result of the decision, Congress may enact public funding for candidates, and may also loosen the parts of the McCain-Feingold law that make it impossible for political parties to coordinate large-scale spending on behalf of their own nominees. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link, and also for this interesting account of Justice Clarence Thomas’s comments about the ruling.