5th Circuit Says Libertarian Louisiana Ballot Access Case is Moot

On January 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th circuit, ruled that the lawsuit Libertarian Party v Dardenne is moot. Therefore, the court declined to express an opinion about the merits of the case. The issue was whether the Louisiana Secretary of State was right or wrong to keep the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate off the ballot in 2008, on the basis that its paperwork for presidential elector candidates was late.

The decision is only 6 pages long. It is somewhat surprising, because on December 18, a different panel of judges in the 5th circuit had ruled that Brian Moore’s ballot access case against Mississippi is not moot. That case concerned whether the Socialist Party presidential candidate should have been on the Mississippi ballot in 2008. He was kept off because his paperwork arrived ten minutes too late.

The new Louisiana decision says that the reason the Mississippi case is not moot, and the Louisiana case is moot, is because in Mississippi, the Secretary of State has said he will in the future continue to enforce a 5 p.m. deadline. The new Louisiana decision says that Louisiana is different, because the Louisiana Secretary of State has not said what he will do in the future, should severe weather make it difficult for the paperwork to be filed on time. Oddly, though, the Louisiana situation is far more likely to recur than the Mississippi situation. In Louisiana in 2008, three presidential candidates were kept off the ballot for being late with paperwork (the Libertarian, the Reform, and the Socialist Party presidential candidates).

The new Louisiana decision’s logic also seems faulty because the Constitutional issue of whether only legislatures can pass laws relating to ballot access for presidential elections is an important issue that certainly will recur in some state, if not Louisiana. Article II of the Constitution says “Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of (Presidential) Electors.” The issue of whether state executive officials, such as a Secretary of State, may also issue regulations relating to presidential candidate ballot access is a significant issue. It came up in Bush v Gore in 2000. It came up in Ohio in 2008, and is pending in Pennsylvania. It is an issue in Louisiana because the Secretary of State himself extended the deadline so as to include the Democratic and Republican Parties, but his extension was shorter than the deadline extension issued by the Governor.

It is expected that the Libertarian Party will ask the entire 5th circuit to rehear the conclusion that its lawsuit is moot.

U.S. District Court in Arizona Issues Injunction Against Arizona Public Funding Program

As noted earlier, on January 14, U.S. District Court Roslyn Silver, a Clinton appointee, had issued a tentative opinion holding that part of the Arizona public funding program is probably unconstitutional. On January 20 the judge issued a final opinion. She said that the unconstitutional part of the law cannot be severed from the main part of the public funding program, so she issued an injunction against the entire program for 2010. Here is the new decision. It is the same as the old, tentative opinion, except new material is added starting on page 18.

However, she stayed her own injunction, to give the state an opportunity to ask the 9th circuit to weigh in. It is possible the 9th circuit will maintain the stay. If the 9th circuit does not do so within 10 days, then the stay will be lifted, and the program can’t be in effect in 2010.

The part of the public funding law that is unconstitutional is the part that gives extra public funding to candidates who have opponents who are not using public funding and who raise a large amount of private money. In other words, public funding is fine if it gives every participating candidate public money, in accordance with a neutral formula that treats all candidates alike. But once the public program starts giving extra amounts of money because of some characteristics of the opponents of the publicly-funded candidate, that is not constitutional. Thanks to Rick Hasen’s ElectionLawBlog for the link to the new decision.

Supreme Court Rolls Back Independent Expenditure Spending For or Against Candidates

On January 21, he U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down federal laws that make it illegal for corporations and unions to spend money, commenting on candidates for federal office. The vote was 5-4.

Read the decision here. Here is an article by Lyle Denniston on scotusblog that is clear, neutral and useful, about what comes next in campaign finance jurisprudence.

Tucson Argues in Court in Favor of Keeping Its Partisan City Elections

On January 19, an Arizona Superior Court heard arguments in City of Tucson v State of Arizona, c2009-7207. The issue is whether the 2009 session of the legislature violated the state constitution when it passed a law saying all cities must use non-partisan elections.

Tucson sued to overturn that law. Here is an article describing how the oral argument went.