On November 14, Chicot County, Arkansas recounted the votes for Assessor, a partisan race. The Green Party candidate lost by 30 votes. The recount showed the Democrat, Barbara Esters, with 2,300 votes and the Green, Elizabeth McCoy, with 2,270 votes.
The U.S. Supreme Court held a conference on Friday morning, November 14. One of the cases considered at the conference is Ohio v Citizens for Tax Reform, 08-570. The issue is whether the U.S. Constitution protects the right of people to pay petition circulators on a per-signature basis. The lower court had ruled that Ohio’s ban on paying people on a per-signature basis is unconstitutional, and Ohio had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule the lower court.
Normally, when the Court holds a conference on a Friday, it doesn’t release any news about that conference until the following Monday. But for the conference of November 14, the Court did announce that it would take five particular other cases. Probably the Court released the news early so as to give the parties on both sides in those five particular cases more time to start working on the next set of briefs.
Since the Court (on November 14) did not release the list of cases it decided not to hear, one cannot be certain that the Court has rejected Ohio’s appeal. The list of cases that were rejected won’t be released until Monday, November 17. But it seems very likely that almost all cases considered at the Conference of November 14 that aren’t on today’s list will be on the rejection list, when the rejection list is released on November 17.
On November 14, the Court did accept two other election-law related cases. One is Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 08-205. The Court seemed eager to accept that case. It did so even though the last brief (on whether the Court should hear the case) had been filed only five days ago. The issue is whether federal campaign finance laws are constitutional, if they are applied to interfere with advertising a movie (intended for release in movie theaters) that deals with federal candidates during the months before an election. The lower court had ruled that the movie, since it is financed by a corporation and since it discussed Hillary Clinton, could not be advertised on TV or radio during the primary season of 2008, since Clinton was a candidate during the primary season.
The other case the Court accepted is Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal Company, 08-22. The issue is whether the U.S. Constitution protects someone who is involved in a lawsuit, when that person’s opponent in the court case had made very large campaign donations to a judge who is hearing the case. The case arose in West Virginia, where the judge in question had refused to recuse himself even though the Massey Coal Company had made very large donations to his campaign for election to the West Virginia Supreme Court. This case had been considered by the U.S. Supreme Court at conferences on October 10, October 17, October 31, November 7, and November 14. The Court has thus given the appearance that it had a difficult time making up its mind whether it wants to hear this case. The case, when decided, may have major implications for Ralph Nader’s case over whether he must pay $80,000 to the people who challenged his Pennsylvania petition in 2004. There were close ties between some members of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and the people who challenged Nader’s petitions, but no member of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recused himself or herself when Nader’s case was argued.
The U.S. Supreme Court held a conference on Friday morning, November 14. One of the cases considered at the conference is Ohio v Citizens for Tax Reform, 08-570. The issue is whether the U.S. Constitution protects the right of people to pay petition circulators on a per-signature basis. The lower court had ruled that Ohio’s ban on paying people on a per-signature basis is unconstitutional, and Ohio had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule the lower court.
Normally, when the Court holds a conference on a Friday, it doesn’t release any news about that conference until the following Monday. But for the conference of November 14, the Court did announce that it would take five particular other cases. Probably the Court released the news early so as to give the parties on both sides in those five particular cases more time to start working on the next set of briefs.
Since the Court (on November 14) did not release the list of cases it decided not to hear, one cannot be certain that the Court has rejected Ohio’s appeal. The list of cases that were rejected won’t be released until Monday, November 17. But it seems very likely that almost all cases considered at the Conference of November 14 that aren’t on today’s list will be on the rejection list, when the rejection list is released on November 17.
On November 14, the Court did accept two other election-law related cases. One is Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 08-205. The Court seemed eager to accept that case. It did so even though the last brief (on whether the Court should hear the case) had been filed only five days ago. The issue is whether federal campaign finance laws are constitutional, if they are applied to interfere with advertising a movie (intended for release in movie theaters) that deals with federal candidates during the months before an election. The lower court had ruled that the movie, since it is financed by a corporation and since it discussed Hillary Clinton, could not be advertised on TV or radio during the primary season of 2008, since Clinton was a candidate during the primary season.
The other case the Court accepted is Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal Company, 08-22. The issue is whether the U.S. Constitution protects someone who is involved in a lawsuit, when that person’s opponent in the court case had made very large campaign donations to a judge who is hearing the case. The case arose in West Virginia, where the judge in question had refused to recuse himself even though the Massey Coal Company had made very large donations to his campaign for election to the West Virginia Supreme Court. This case had been considered by the U.S. Supreme Court at conferences on October 10, October 17, October 31, November 7, and November 14. The Court has thus given the appearance that it had a difficult time making up its mind whether it wants to hear this case. The case, when decided, may have major implications for Ralph Nader’s case over whether he must pay $80,000 to the people who challenged his Pennsylvania petition in 2004. There were close ties between some members of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and the people who challenged Nader’s petitions, but no member of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recused himself or herself when Nader’s case was argued.
On November 13, the Republican National Committee, and the California Republican Party, jointly filed in a lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C., to overturn parts of the McCain-Feingold law. The case is Republican National Committee v Federal Election Commission, 1:08cv-01953-RJL.
The case is not seeking to overturn the federal limit on how much money may be contributed to a political party. Instead, the lawsuit attacks the part of the McCain-Feingold law that restrict what parties can do with the money they raise, and the part of the McCain-Feingold law on the scope of the federal limits.
The federal law bans state political parties from using “state” money (i.e., money raised under state campaign finance restrictions) for anything connected to a federal election campaign. Therefore, state political parties can’t use the funds they raised under state regulations for such things as voter registration activity in even-numbered years, and communications that talk about federal candidates.
The federal law bans national political parties from soliciting donors to give to state political parties (unless the federal limits are respected). Generally, state restrictions are less severe than federal restrictions. The lawsuit says the Republican National Committee wants to solicit funds for state elections scheduled in New Jersey and Virginia in 2009, and that it wants to create a Redistricting Account to help Republican state legislators work on redistricting, and it wants to raise funds for its own lawsuit. It wants to raise these funds in various states, subject only to the campaign finance restrictions imposed by those states. But the McCain-Feingold law makes all that illegal, unless the federal limits are respected.
On October 28, a lawsuit was filed to overturn Ohio’s county distribution requirement for statewide initiatives. The case is Citizens in Charge v Brunner, U.S. Dist. Court, Columbus, 08-1014. Similar lawsuits have won against initiative ballot access requirements in Nevada, Idaho and Utah. These lawsuits are all based on the U.S. Supreme Court decision Moore v Ogilvie, from 1969, which invalidated Illinois’ county distribution requirement for statewide independent candidate petitions.
County distribution requirements say the petition is invalid unless it has some specified number of signatures from a particular number of counties. The U.S. Supreme Court decision is based on the fact that counties vary widely in population. So if an initiative, or a candidate, is well-supported in low-population counties, that initiative or candidate can easily overcome the county distribution requirement. But if an initiative or candidate is supported mostly in counties with large populations, the county distribution requirement interferes with the ability to get on the ballot. There are five states (Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Nevada, and Rhode Island) in which over half the population lives in a single county.
Courts have struck down all county distribution requirements for candidate and new/minor party petitions, except that Pennsylvania still has it for statewide candidates seeking a place on a primary ballot, and also in 2007 Nebraska passed it for non-presidential statewide independent candidates.
