Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Washington State Disclosure of Contributions for Referenda and Initiatives

Posted on by October 23, 2009
1

On October 21, a group that opposes Washington state’s R-71 (the November 2009 ballot measure on civil unions) filed a federal lawsuit against certain state campaign finance laws. One law requires the disclosure of names and addresses of everyone who contributes as much as $25 to a committee formed to support or oppose ballot measures. Another law requires similar information, plus the occupation, employer’s name, and employer’s address, for people who contribute as much as $100. Finally, the lawsuit challenges the law that makes it illegal for anyone to give more than $5,000 to a campaign for or against an initiative during the 21 days preceding an election. The case is Family PAC v Reed, C09-5662, western district.

If this lawsuit wins quick injunctive relief, of course, both sides on the measure might benefit.

Ninth Circuit Explains Why It Ordered Names and Addresses of Petition Signers to be Released

Posted on by October 22, 2009
5

On October 22, the 9th circuit issued this 21-page explanation of why, on October 15, it had reversed the U.S. District Court in Washington state and had given permission to Washington’s Secretary of State to release the names and addresses of people who signed the R-71 Referendum petition.

The 9th Circuit said that petitions aren’t private anyway, because the circulators can see who signed. So can certain employees of the Secretary of State’s office, because those employees must check the petitions for validity. Also, because petition sheets contain 20 lines for signatures, someone who signs any particular sheet may glance at the names and addresses of other people who had already signed that sheet.

The next stage in this lawsuit, Doe v Reed, will undoubtedly be that the proponents of privacy will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the 9th Circuit’s opinion. In the meantime, because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s order earlier this week, while the case is pending, the names and addresses will not be released.

The argument that the names and addresses are not private because they aren’t completely private is not persuasive. There is a huge difference between having perhaps a dozen strangers see one’s name and addresses on a petition, and having one’s name and address posted on an internet site. By analogy, census data is private, yet anyone interviewed by a census employee knows that the census employee will see the information. Also, in a petition like the R-71 petition, which was circulated in many churches, a signer may know that the particular sheet he or she signed is not being circulated before the general public, but only among other attendees of that church. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for this news.

Poll Shows California Public Funding Measure Would Pass Easily

Posted on by October 22, 2009
Reply

In June 2010, California voters will be voting on a ballot measure to provide public funding for candidates for Secretary of State, starting in the 2014 election. A Lake Research Partners poll, just released, shows that the measure now enjoys the support of 63% of the voters, with 22% opposed and 16% undecided. See this story. The story summarizes the measure and says candidates need small contributions from 7,500 voters in order to receive public funding. The story does not mention that independent candidates would need small contributions from 15,000 voters to receive any public funding. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for the link.

Senate Passes Bill to Require Earlier Mailing of Foreign Absentee Ballots

Posted on by October 22, 2009
1

On October 22, the U.S. Senate passed S.1390, the Defense Authorization Bill. The bill includes the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act, which requires states to mail overseas absentee ballots in federal elections at least 45 days before the election. This will almost surely force states with September primaries for Congress to move them to late August. See this story.

U.S. District Court Issues Injunction Against City Restrictions on Groups that Comment on Candidates

Posted on by October 22, 2009
Reply

On October 22, a U.S. District Court in Colorado issued an injunction against certain campaign finance laws in Longmont, Colorado. The case is Western Tradition Partnership v City of Longmont, 09-cv-2303. The city had interpreted its own law to require groups that comment on candidates for city office to report their expenditures. Also, such commentary had to include within the body of the message a statement of how much that particular ad or communication was costing. Finally, such groups had to inform the candidates about their commentary.

The Court said that the latter two requirements are unconstitutional, and said that the first one is a case of the city misunderstanding its own law. Here is the 16-page opinion.