On January 11, a federal lawsuit was filed in Nevada against the state Democratic Party. The lawsuit attacks the party for having set up “at-large” precincts for its presidential caucus on Saturday, January 19, inside large Las Vegas casino-hotels. The party by-laws were recently amended to provide for such caucus locations in any establishment that has “at least 4,000 employees in a contiguous area working on Saturday morning, January 19.”

Since the caucus is paid for and organized by the Democratic Party, rather than the state, this will be another interesting test of the extent to which political parties can regulate their own nominations procedure. The Nevada election code does regulate caucuses, and the code does not provide for such extra voting places. Normally lawsuits alleging that a party is violating state law are filed in state courts, but when there is a time emergency and constitutional rights are involved, federal courts also have jurisdiction.

The case is Chesnut v Democratic Party of Nevada, 2:08-cv-46. Another plaintiff is the Nevada State Education Association (or “the state teachers union”). The lawsuit appears to have a political context. The casino workers are part of the Culinary Workers Union, which has endorsed Barack Obama. The Nevada State Education Association has not endorsed any presidential candidate. Many casino workers won’t be able to attend the Saturday caucuses if the “at-large precincts” are disallowed. Teachers, on the other hand, generally have free time on Saturdays. The specific hotel-casinos (all in Las Vegas) are the Bellagio, Luxor, Mirage, Rio, Caesar’s Palace, Paris, Flamingo, Wynn Las Vegas, and New York New York. Thanks to Ed Still’s votelawblog for this news.

On January 11, the Michigan Green, Libertarian and Reform Parties filed a lawsuit in federal court against a Michigan law that discriminates in favor of the Democratic and Republican Parties. Specifically, the lawsuit attacks the law that says the list of which voters choose a Republican presidential primary ballot, and the list of which voters choose a Democratic presidential primary ballot, is given only to those two parties. Those parties are then free to give the list to any group they wish, but it is a crime for anyone who didn’t get the list from the two major parties to possess the list. The case is Green Party of Michigan v Land, 2:08-cv-10149. Thanks to Thomas Jones for this news.

On January 11, U.S. District Court Judge Lee Yeakel ruled that Dennis Kucinich was properly excluded from the Texas Democratic presidential primary ballot, because he wouldn’t sign an oath saying he would “fully support” whomever the Democrats eventually nominate for president. Kucinich will probably appeal to the 5th circuit. During the oral argument, the judge expressed the fear that if Kucinich could prevail, that this would cause many more lawsuits to be filed against major political parties in the future.

Assuming that the decision is upheld on appeal, this is one more sign of the growing legal strength of political parties in the U.S. to control their own affairs, even including access to their own primary ballots. To the extent that this trend continues (and it has been continuing for the last 20 years), the case against restrictive ballot access laws for new and minor political parties, and independent candidates, also grows stronger. The whole basis for upholding restrictive ballot access laws in general elections is that “anyone” can run in a major party primary. Thus, in 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Georgia’s restrictive ballot access laws and said if the Socialist Workers Party candidates couldn’t get on under their own label, they were free to run in major party primaries (footnote 25 of Jenness v Fortson). That theory is looking weaker and weaker.