Oregon Peace Party Changes Its Name to Progressive Party

Posted on by September 19, 2009
6

The Peace Party became a ballot-qualified party in 2008 in Oregon. It was formed for the purpose of placing Ralph Nader on the ballot in Oregon. At the time, it was significantly easier to qualify a new party in Oregon than to get an independent candidate on the ballot (thanks to good legislative action in 2009, the independent procedures are now easier than they had been in 2008).

Because the Peace Party polled over 1% of the vote for president, it retained its ballot status, and is ballot qualified for 2010. On September 17, it filed paperwork with the Secretary of State to change its name to the Progressive Party. Oregon permits qualified parties to change their names. However, voters who had been registered in the Peace Party will need to change their registration, if they wish to continue being a member of the party under its new name.

Oregon and Vermont are now the two states that have a ballot-qualified party named the Progressive Party.

Federal Lawsuit Challenges Rule That Voters Can Only Sign for One Candidate and the Candidate Who Files First Gets the Signatures

Posted on by September 18, 2009
6

On September 18, a candidate for Mayor of Central Falls, Rhode Island, filed a federal lawsuit to invalidate a city ordinance that says that if a voter signs petitions for two different candidates for the same office, the signature counts for the candidate who submits his or her petition first, and is void for the other candidate. The case is Fontes v City of Central Falls.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld laws that say a voter may sign for only one candidate for a particular office. However, generally when jurisdictions limit a voter to signing for only one candidate per office, that jurisdiction provides that the signatures should be dated. Petitions for city office in Central Falls don’t seem to have space for a date.

The case arose when Hipolito Fontes was told that he only had 197 valid signatures to run for Mayor, even though he submitted 333 signatures to meet a requirement of 200. Fontes says that campaign workers for a rival candidate followed him while he was petitioning, and endeavored to persuade voters who had signed his petition to then sign the rival petition. Fontes also says that city elections officials manipulated the process by which each candidate tried to file at the first moment permitted for filing such petitions.

Tucson Sues State of Arizona to Retain Partisan Elections for City Office

Posted on by September 18, 2009
Reply

On September 16, the city of Tucson filed a lawsuit in state court, arguing that the State Constitution permits the city to decide for itself whether it wishes to use partisan or non-partisan elections. The Tucson City Charter calls for partisan elections, and the voters approved it and later voted down attempts to repeal it. However, earlier this year, the state passed a law requiring all cities to use non-partisan elections. The case is City of Tucson v State, Pima Co. Superior Court, C2009-7207.

Massachusetts Libertarians Win Presidential Substitution Case in U.S. District Court

Posted on by September 18, 2009
6

On September 18, the Massachusetts Libertarian Party won its 2008 case on presidential substitution. The decision was not surprising, because the same court had granted injunctive relief last year. The issue is whether an unqualified party can use a stand-in presidential candidate on its petition, if it is circulating its petition before it knows who its actual presidential candidate will be. The decision is 13 pages long and says, “”Such a right to substitute is guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution to ensure that the names of the actual candidates appear on the ballot.” The case is Barr v Galvan, civ. 08-11340-NMG. It is not known if the state will appeal to the First Circuit.

The Equal Protection Clause is relevant because Massachusetts, and all states, lets qualified parties substitute a new nominee for President or Vice-President if the original nominee withdraws before the ballots are printed. For example, in July 1972, the Democratic National Convention chose Thomas Eagleton for vice-president, and his name was certified to the elections officials of all states. In August 1972, Eagleton resigned from the ticket, and the Democratic Party replaced him with R. Sargent Shriver. All states printed Shriver’s name on the ballot (except for Arizona and North Dakota, the two states that never print any vice-presidential nominees on general election ballots).

U.S. Court of Appeals Strikes Down Limits on Contributions to Non-Profit Groups That Use Money to Run Ads for or Against Candidates

Posted on by September 18, 2009
3

On September 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, held unconstitutional several Federal Election Commission regulations on campaign spending by non-profit groups, often known as “527’s”. The case is Emily’s List v FEC, 08-5422. Here is the decision. The majority decision is 44 pages, and the partial dissent/partial concurrence is 29 pages.

The FEC regulations held that non-profit groups that run their own ads campaigning for or against candidates for federal office are limited, in how they raise the money to pay for those ads. The FEC said individual contributions to such non-profit groups could not exceed $5,000. Two judges in the 3-judge panel said such contribution limits are unconstitutional. The third judge said that the Court should not have reached the constitutional issue, but should have limited its holding to finding that the FEC lacked authority to issue the regulations.

A paradox of the decision is that now (assuming the decision stands), non-profits have more ability to raise money to run their own political ads referring to candidates for federal office than political parties do. When political parties raise money, contributions from individuals are limited.

Of course, under the decision, non-profits are still limited in how much money individuals may contribute, if the non-profit then uses those contributions to contribute directly to particular candidates. The decision does not deal with contributions from non-profits to candidates. It only deals with contributions to non-profits when the non-profit uses its money to produce and run its own ads.

This decision, if it stands, should be very helpful to Unity08 in its pending lawsuit against FEC regulations that limited contributions to it. Thanks to Howard Bashman’s HowAppealing for the link.