On June 10, the New York State Court of Appeals issued two opinions, both boosting the power of state party organizations to centralize power in those state organizations. One case concerned the Working Families Party; the other concerned the Independence Party. The Working Families decision is 8 pages long and can be seen here

The Independence Party decision is only 3 pages and mostly defers to the Working Families Party decision for an explanation. In the case of the Working Families Party, the case was a fight between the state organization and the Suffolk County organization, over which body should have the power to decide whether to let outsiders run in the party’s primary. The Independence Party lawsuit is similar, and was between the state organization and the New York city branches. The Independence Party decision does concede that the New York city branches do have statutory authority to decide whether to let outsiders run in the party’s primary for the 3 citywide offices (Mayor, Public Advocate and Comptroller). But for all other city offices, such as city council, the state organization may keep the decision-making power in its own hands. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news.

On March 5, 2008, the 6th circuit ruled that Ohio cannot constitutionally ban the practice of paying circulators on a per signature basis. Citizens for Tax Reform v Deters, 518 F 3d 375. Ohio wants to take this case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The state’s request to the U.S. Supreme Court would have been due on June 5, but the state has asked the Court for an extension of time to August 5. That extension has been granted.

The U.S. Supreme Court has twice ruled that the First Amendment protects the right to circulate a petition. In 1988 it ruled that states cannot ban paying circulators, and in 1999 it ruled that states cannot require circulators to be registered voters. In both cases, the issue concerned initiative petitions. The conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as the liberal justices, seem to be pro-initiative.

The Massachusetts Libertarian Party is not ballot-qualified; it went off the ballot after the November 2004 election, because it didn’t poll as much as 3% for president (if there had been any other statewide offices on the ballot, the party would probably have maintained its status; but 2004 happened to be a year with no U.S. Senate election).

Therefore, the party has been circulating a statewide candidate petition, listing a stand-in presidential candidate, George Phillies, and the actual U.S. Senate candidate, Robert Underwood. The petition is due July 29 and is already over halfway done. The party used a stand-in presidential candidate so that it could get started early in the year.

The Massachusetts Election Division’s Legal Counsel wrote a letter, dated September 22, 1995, which said that stand-ins for president are permitted. This was not surprising, since Massachusetts had previously approved vice-presidential stand-ins, in 1980 for John B. Anderson’s independent candidacy. A subsequent Massachusetts Election Division’s Legal Counsel had amended the policy, in a letter to the Reform Party dated March 30, 2000. It said the stand-in had to be a bona fide presidential candidate who really was seeking the party’s nomination. It said that if that person (who had been listed on the petition) had tried and failed to get the party’s nomination at the national convention, then the party could substitute the actual presidential nominee.

In spite of these two earlier rulings, the current Massachusetts Elections Division Legal Counsel seems to be refusing the Libertarian Party’s request for substitution. The Libertarian Party is obtaining legal counsel and hopes to change the mind of the Legal Director. Otherwise, the party will sue.

Although there aren’t many legal precedents on presidential and vice-presidential substitution, they are all favorable. The Libertarian Party successfully sued Florida in 1996 in federal court over presidential substitution. John Anderson won all his lawsuits in 1980 over vice-presidential substitution.