The Democratic Change Commission met in Washington, D.C., on October 24-25, and will meet again on December 4-5. This is the group that is mulling over how to improve the party’s presidential selection process. See this story.
5
On October 27, the New Hampshire Attorney General filed his brief in Libertarian Party of New Hampshire v Gardner, the case filed in 2008 challenging the state’s policy of refusing to let unqualified parties use a stand-in presidential candidate on their ballot access petitions. The brief is only six pages long and seems to say that the U.S. Constitution permits states to discriminate against unqualified parties, relative to qualified parties, in all realms of election law.
The brief says that courts have permitted states to keep small parties off the ballot; to keep members of small parties from serving on Election Boards; and to deprive them of their own government-funded primaries. However, there are other areas of the law in which the courts have said that states may not discriminate against unqualified parties, that the state’s brief does not mention.
These include five cases that say if the state lets people register into qualified parties, it must let them register into unqualified parties. Also, there are five cases that say if a state gives a list of the registered voters to the qualified parties, it must give the list on the same terms to the unqualified parties. Ironically, one of these precedents is from New Hampshire. And, there are three cases that say the government must not discriminate against small parties on matters of public benefits. One is from Rhode Island and says if the government lets the qualified parties hold a lottery, it must let the unqualified parties do so as well. One is from Connecticut and says if the government gives money to candidates for their campaign expenses, it can’t discriminate against unqualified, new and small parties and independent candidates. And one says if the federal government gives inexpensive postal rates to large political parties, it must give the same rates to smaller political parties.
Another failing of New Hampshire’s brief is that it completely fails to mention any of the precedents from other states that say that if a state lets the qualified parties substitute, it must let the unqualified parties have the same substitution ability. These cases are from Massachusetts, Virginia, Florida and Pennsylvania.
On October 26, the Arizona State Court of Appeals reversed the lower court in the lawsuit over whether one particular candidate should be on the run-off ballot of November 3 for Prescott City Council. The Appeals Court said the election should go ahead with only 5 candidates on the ballot. Three are to be elected.
Immediately after the first round in September, one of the six candidates entitled to be on the run-off ballot had withdrawn, and his name was not printed on run-off ballots. The candidate who had placed seventh had then argued that he should be on the run-off ballot, and the lower court had agreed. He will continue his campaign as a write-in candidate.
On October 26, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty endorsed Doug Hoffman for U.S. House in the special New York election, 23rd district. Hoffman is the Conservative Party nominee, who is opposing the Republican and Democratic nominees. See this story. Thanks to Tim Brace for this news.
On October 22, the Connecticut legislature’s Government Administration & Elections Committee heard testimony from the Attorney General, and from officials who run the state’s public funding program. See this newspaper story. The Attorney General seemed to hope that the legislature won’t amend the public funding bill, because he believes he can overturn the U.S. District Court ruling of August 27 that invalidated it. The other witnesses seemed to prefer the legislature to revise the system this year, so that it no longer severely discriminates against independent candidates for state office.
Meanwhile, the briefs in the appeal to the 2nd circuit will all be submitted by December 30, 2009.