A bill is pending in the Idaho legislature to eliminate the state income-tax checkoff program, under which taxpayers who want to help any particular political party may do so on their state income tax form. See this story.
Idaho is one of 13 states with such a program.
On January 15, the U.S. Supreme Court said that it will hear Doe v Reed, 09-559, the case from Washington state on whether the Constitution forbids states from making public the names and addresses of people who sign petitions. The case had been filed by people who circulated a referendum petition against civil unions for same-sex couples. The people who submitted the petition do not want the names and addresses of the signers to be given by the Secretary of State to a group that planned to post the names and addresses on an internet site.
The Court’s conference was on January 15. Normally, the Court won’t reveal what it has decided at conference until the following week. But the Court released the news early on January 15, to make it easier for the attorneys on both sides to begin writing their briefs, because the argument will either be in April 2010, or October 2010. The Court accepted four other cases as well (the other cases are not election-law related).
Doe v Reed will be the first case the U.S. Supreme Court has heard on procedures for ballot access petitions since 2008, when it issued its opinion in New York State Board of Elections v Lopez-Torres. That case upheld New York state’s procedures for candidates for Delegate to Judicial Nominating Conventions to get themselves onto primary ballots. The Lopez-Torres decision didn’t pay much attention to the details of how tough those petition requirements were. Instead, the Court seemed to say that because the Democratic and Republican Parties wanted ballot access for their own primary ballots to be restrictive, that was their decision.
On January 15, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton granted injunctive relief to the Arizona Green Party on two issues. The order permits the party to use out-of-state circulators for its petition to get itself on the ballot. Also, the order extends the deadline from February 25 to March 11. The party had not argued that the February 25, 2010 was per se unconstitutional. But the party had argued that it violates due process to change the deadline from March to February and to try to enforce it so soon after enacting the change. The case is Arizona Green Party v Bennett, 2:09-cv-2412.
It was no surprise that the party won injunctive relief against the ban on out-of-state circulators for petitions to qualify a party. The 9th circuit had struck down Arizona’s residency requirement for petitioners in 2008, in a case involving independent presidential petitions. So the 2009 legislative session had repealed the ban, but only for independent presidential petitions. The 2009 legislative session left the ban in place for all other types of petitions, which was not logical.
Last December, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Christian Legal Society v Martinez, 08-1371. Although this is not an election law case, the opinion will probably influence election law, because it is a case on freedom of association, and that inevitably affects the law on political parties.
The case concerns whether Hastings Law School in San Francisco is violating the U.S. Constitution by requiring student groups that it recognizes to open their doors to membership by any law student at the school. The Christian Legal Society does not wish to have members that disagree with its principles, which include a belief that unmarried individuals should not engage in any sexual activity.
Both sides have recently attracted top-flight legal talent to represent them in the case. Former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Michael McConnell will argue for the Christian Legal Society. Former Solicitor General Gregory Garre will argue for the law school. See this article. The Christian Legal Society brief is due January 28, and the school’s brief is due March 8.
On January 14, U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver, a Clinton appointee, issued a tentative 18-page opinion in McComish v Brewer, cv-08-1550. The tentative opinion says that part of Arizona’s Public Funding law for candidates for state office is unconstitutional. Specifically, the decision strikes down the part of the law that says when a privately-funded candidate manages to raise a large amount of money privately, then that candidate’s publicly-funded opponents get a substantial additional amount of public funding.
Judge Silver set another oral argument for January 15, to give the state a chance to persuade her that her tentative opinion is wrong. See this story. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for the link to the decision.
