On June 25, Great Britain held a special election to fill a vacant seat in the House of Commons, for Henley (near Oxford). The results: Conservative John Howell 19,796; Liberal Democrat Stephen Kearney 9,680; Green Mark Stevenson 1,321; British National Party Timothy Rait 1,243; Labour Richard McKenzie 1,066. The Labour Party, of course, is the party with a majority in the House of Commons.

Britain and Canada are two-party systems, under the original meaning of the term “two-party system”. “Two-party system”, coined in 1911 to describe the British system, means a system in which two particular parties are far larger than all the others, and only two particular parties at any given time have a realistic chance of forming the government. But because Britain and Canada have non-discriminatory election laws, other parties do win seats and do exert influence. Britain and Canada have equal ballot access laws for all candidates; all candidates have an equal chance to be listed on the top off the ballot; all candidates face the same campaign finance rules. Under that environment, which existed in the United States in the 19th century as well, elections are far more fluid, as this recent British election shows. The Henley seat was vacant because its former member of Parliament, Boris Johnson, had resigned in order to take office as Mayor of London. Thanks to Eric Garris for this news.

Although South Carolina has always permitted “fusion” (the ability for two parties to jointly nominate the same candidate, and be listed under each label on the ballot), South Carolina elections officials say they don’t know whether it is legal to add up the votes under each party label, to give the candidate credit for all the votes. The Secretary of State said on June 26 that he will ask for an Attorney General’s Opinion on this question.

On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law unconstitutional. Davis v Federal Election Commission, 07-320. The vote was 5-4. Here is the opinion.

This case concerned the “Millionaire’s Amendment”, which relaxes contribution limits for any congressional candidate who has a wealthy opponent. Specifically, if any congressional candidate spends at least $350,000 of his or her own funds on the campaign, then the opponents of that candidate are released from the $2,300 limit on contributions to their campaign. The majority opinion, by Justice Samuel Alito, says that the Constitution does not permit the government to set unequal contribution limits. The opinion’s key sentence, on page 16 of the majority opinion, says, “It is a dangerous business for Congress to use the election laws to influence the voters’ choices.” Also, on page 18, “The unprecedented step of imposing different contribution and coordinated party expenditure limits on candidates vying for the same seat is antithetical to the First Amendment.”

This language should make it easier to win lawsuits against state public funding laws which set unequal rewards for some candidates, relative to other candidates. Public funding laws in Maine, Arizona, and New Mexico, treat all candidates exactly the same. The public funding that formerly existed in Massachusetts also treated all candidates equally. But public funding laws in Connecticut and New Jersey, and a pending bill in California, do not treat all candidates the same; qualifications to get public funding are easier for Republicans and Democrats than for other candidates.

Justice Stevens dissented, and said that the 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision Buckley v Valeo was mistaken when it struck down limits on campaign expenditures. He expressed the view that too much campaign advertising “obscures the issues.” He also said that “the Constitution does not require Congress to treat all declared candidates the same.” This contradicts his opinion in Cook v Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (2001). In that opinion, he said states may not “favor or disfavor a class of candidates.” That decision struck down a Missouri state law that provided that candidates for Congress should have labels on the ballot that said what their position is, on amending the U.S. Constitution to provide for term limits for Congress.

Justices David Souter, Ruth Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer voted that the Millionaires’ Amendment is constitutional, but they didn’t join the portion of Justice Stevens’ dissent that said Buckley v Valeo should be overturned.