Colorado Legislator Will Introduce Bill to Ease Independent Candidate Prior Registration Hurdle

Posted on by December 18, 2009
3

Seven states have laws that say no one can be an independent candidate if, in the past, that person has been a member of a qualified party, as determined by what he or she put on the voter registration form. The most severe prior disaffiliation period is in Colorado, where no one can be an independent candidate if that person was a member of a qualified party, for even one day, in the year preceding the filing period.

A Colorado legislator has decided to introduce a bill in 2010 to ease the prior period.

The second most severe requirement is California’s, where an independent must not have been a member of a qualified party, at any time during the 13 months prior to the general election. The third most severe law is Oregon’s, where the period is 180 days before the filing deadline.

Oakland, California City Attorney Says Oakland Must Use Instant Runoff Voting in 2010

Posted on by December 17, 2009
Reply

On December 16, the city attorney of Oakland, California, wrote this legal opinion which says that the city must use Instant Runoff Voting for its own city elections in 2010. The voters amended the charter in 2006 to use IRV, but only when elections officials had certified that the vote-counting equipment is ready. Because Secretary of State Debra Bowen fulfilled that last requirement last week, the opinion says the city council has no power to stop IRV, as long as the City Charter retains its existing language. Thanks to Blair Bobier for the link.

Federal Government Won’t Appeal Emily’s List Campaign Finance Decision

Posted on by December 17, 2009
2

On September 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, had struck down federal campaign rules that tell non-profit groups that they cannot receive more than $5,000 from an individual, if the money is to be used for that non-profit’s own ad, commenting on a candidate for federal office. The case was Emily’s List v Federal Election Commission.

On December 17, the Solicitor General of the United States said that he will not appeal that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for this news.

The government hopes to vitiate the Emily’s List precedent, by winning a very similar lawsuit called Speechnow.org v FEC. That case has an en banc hearing in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, on January 27, 2010. Speechnow.org is a group that wants to make independent expenditures on behalf of candidates for federal office who uphold free speech. As in the case of Emily’s List, Speechnow.org wants to raise unlimited funds from individuals to help pay for its ads. The U.S. District Court had ruled against Speechnow.org on July 1, 2008. The case is going directly from U.S. District Court to the entire panel of full-time judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals. If the FEC wins in the U.S. Court of Appeals en banc, that precedent will overshadow the Emily’s List precedent, because the Emily’s List precedent is an ordinary appellate decision from a normal 3-judge panel.

By the time all the judges of the D.C. circuit hear Speechnow.org on January 27, chances are that the U.S. Supreme Court will have put out a decision in yet another campaign finance case, called Citizens United v FEC.