The Wall Street Journal has this article on the San Francisco Green Party. It is puzzling that on the same day, the San Francisco Bay Guardian also ran this article on the San Francisco Green Party. The two articles are not the same, although they both emphasize that by some indicators, the party is weaker than it was in the past.
On January 13, the 2nd circuit heard two hours of oral arguments in Green Party of Connecticut v Garfield, 09-3760. The three judges were Jose A. Cabranes, a Clinton appointee; Amalya Kearse, a Carter appointee; and Peter W. Hall, a Bush Jr. appointee.
The first hour was devoted to the part of the case over restrictions on lobbyists. The plaintiffs in this half of the case do not include the Green and Libertarian Parties. The Connecticut public funding law also includes provisions making it illegal for lobbyists and their spouses and children from contributing to candidates for state office, or even for advocating on behalf of any candidates for state office. The U.S. District Court had upheld this half of the law.
The second hour was devoted to the part of the case over public funding. The U.S. District Court had invalidated the public funding provisions because they discriminate against minor party candidates, and especially against independent candidates. The public funding law also could be said to injure candidates who either choose not to use public funding, or those who can’t qualify for public funding, because if such a candidate manages to raise a large amount of private funding, his or her publicly-funded opponents get substantial amounts if additional public funding.
The judges seemed more active in questioning during the first hour, than during the second hour. This is a complex case, and normally the 2nd circuit might prefer to take a good amount of time to reach its decision on both halves of the case. On the other hand, there is considerable pressure on the panel to reach a quick decision, because candidates running in 2010 are disadvantaged, not knowing whether the public funding provisions will be in effect this year or not. The public funding provisions were written so that if any part of the formulas for determining how various types of candidates qualify for money, the entire public funding program is void.
Arizona Representative Judy Burges (R-Skull Valley) has introduced a bill in the Arizona legislature to keep presidential candidates off the ballot unless they prove that they meet the U.S. Constitutional qualifications. See this story. The bill is not yet on-line and doesn’t have a bill number. At this point it is not apparent if the bill relates to the Arizona presidential primary ballot, or to the general election ballot, or both.
Two apparently similar bills were introduced in the Arizona Senate in 2009, but they made no headway. They were SB 1053 and SB 1158.
The next news from the U.S. Supreme Court on cases relating to election law will probably be on January 19, when the Court will probably say whether it will hear Doe v Reed, the case on whether petition signatures are private or not. The Court won’t release its opinion in the campaign finance case, Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, until January 20 at the earliest. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the news about the next decision day.
On January 12, California held a special election to fill the vacant 72nd Assembly seat. The results: Republican Chris Norby 62.88%; Democrat John MacMurray 31.04%; Green Jane Rands 6.08%.
The last time this seat was up, in November 2008, the vote had been: Republican 54.80%; Democratic 45.20%.
