On September 2, U.S. District Court Judge Edmund Sargus ordered Ohio to put the Green Party on the ballot. He is the same judge who had earlier put the Libertarian and Socialist Parties on the ballot. The case is McKinney v Brunner, 2:08-cv-819.
On August 29, U.S. District Court Roslyn Silver, a Clinton appointee, voided one element of Arizona’s public funding program. McComish v Brewer, cv-08-1550.
Arizona’s law provides for public funding for candidates who raise enough small contributions. The ruling does not disturb the basic program. But the law also provides for substantial extra public funding for a candidate who has an opponent who is not participating in the public funding program. If the privately-funded opponent raises or spends more than a particular voluntary ceiling, then the publicly-funded candidate’s public funds are increased, to match the spending of the privately-funded candidate. Even that aspect of the law was not overturned in court. But, the law also gives the same extra public funding to a candidate whose privately-funded opponent is the “beneficiary” of independent expenditures.
“Independent expenditures” means that someone who is not associated with a candidate spends money on his or her behalf, without any coordination.
The plaintiffs pointed out that the provision of the law concerning extra subsidies when the opponent is the “beneficiary” of independent expenditures leads to manipulation. Someone can deliberately create poor-quality independent expenditures for a privately-funded candidate, in an attempt to injure that privately-funded candidate. Then, the privately-funded candidate’s publicly-funded opponent gets a windfall in extra public funding, all to “balance” independent expenditures that might be utterly useless, and even harmful, to the candidate they are supposedly helping. The ruling focuses on that scenario. The judge did not stop public funding for the September 2 primary, but another hearing will be held on September 3 to decide if it should be stopped for the general election. Thanks to electionlawblog for this news.
On August 29, U.S. District Court Roslyn Silver, a Clinton appointee, voided one element of Arizona’s public funding program. McComish v Brewer, cv-08-1550.
Arizona’s law provides for public funding for candidates who raise enough small contributions. The ruling does not disturb the basic program. But the law also provides for substantial extra public funding for a candidate who has an opponent who is not participating in the public funding program. If the privately-funded opponent raises or spends more than a particular voluntary ceiling, then the publicly-funded candidate’s public funds are increased, to match the spending of the privately-funded candidate. Even that aspect of the law was not overturned in court. But, the law also gives the same extra public funding to a candidate whose privately-funded opponent is the “beneficiary” of independent expenditures.
“Independent expenditures” means that someone who is not associated with a candidate spends money on his or her behalf, without any coordination.
The plaintiffs pointed out that the provision of the law concerning extra subsidies when the opponent is the “beneficiary” of independent expenditures leads to manipulation. Someone can deliberately create poor-quality independent expenditures for a privately-funded candidate, in an attempt to injure that privately-funded candidate. Then, the privately-funded candidate’s publicly-funded opponent gets a windfall in extra public funding, all to “balance” independent expenditures that might be utterly useless, and even harmful, to the candidate they are supposedly helping. The ruling focuses on that scenario. The judge did not stop public funding for the September 2 primary, but another hearing will be held on September 3 to decide if it should be stopped for the general election. Thanks to electionlawblog for this news.
John McCain’s campaign has sent out a press release that includes a copy of Sarah Palin’s voter registration in early 1982, shortly after she turned 18 on February 11, 1982. She registered “Republican.” However, the Alaskan Independence Party was not a qualified party at that time, and it was not listed as a choice on voter registration records. It won a lawsuit on March 4, 1983, called Vogler v Miller. The decision, from the Alaska Supreme Court, struck down the old Alaska definition of “political party” (a group that had polled 10% for Governor). The state then recognized the Alaskan Independence Party and began letting voters register into it.
It is not known if Palin later changed her registration from “Republican” to “Alaskan Independence”. Old-time leaders of the Alaskan Independence Party say she was a member before 1996.
Louisiana’s Governor and Secretary of State are considering postponing the congressional primary, which is scheduled for September 6, because so many people are not at home. Thanks to Ed Still’s VoteLaw for this news.
