Virginia Independent Green Party Affiliates with Independence Party

Posted on by January 13, 2008
Reply

On January 10, the Virginia Independent Green Party affiliated itself with the Independence Party of America, the budding new national third party headed by Frank MacKay of New York state.

The Independent Green Party is not a ballot-qualified party. However, it has the organizational strength to place candidates on the ballot in Virginia, and does so repeatedly. It has never been an affiliate of the national Green Party. The Independent Green Party has never before participated in a presidential election, but it is currently circulating a presidential petition listing Michael Bloomberg as its presidential candidate.

On January 26, the Minnesota Independence Party (which is ballot-qualified) will probably also affiliate itself with the Independence Party of America.

Another Interesting Lawsuit Filed on Political Party Autonomy

Posted on by January 12, 2008
Reply

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.

New Jersey Governor Likely to Sign National Popular Vote Bill on January 12

Posted on by January 12, 2008
Reply

New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine is likely to sign A4225 on Saturday, January 12. This is the National Popular Vote Plan bill. This will make New Jersey the 2nd state to have passed the plan. It doesn’t take effect unless or until states comprising a majority of votes in the Electoral College have passed it. The first state to pass the plan was Maryland.

Michigan Minor Parties Sue Over Distribution of Voter List

Posted on by January 11, 2008
Reply

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.

U.S. Supreme Court Takes a Campaign Finance Case

Posted on by January 11, 2008
Reply

On January 11, the U.S. Supreme Court held a conference to decide which cases to take. It released the news of which cases it did accept, immediately after the conference. One of the cases is a campaign finance case, Davis v Federal Election Commission, 07-320. The lower court had upheld the law. The issue is part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, called the “Millionaires’ Amendment.” The law says that restrictions on how much money individuals can give to federal candidates are eased, when one of the candidates in the race funds his own campaign with at least $350,000. Jack Davis was the candidate who spent a large amount of his own money. He was a New York Democratic nominee for the US House in the 26th district in 2006. He argues that he was harmed because his Republican opponent, incumbent Thomas Reynolds, was permitted to receive triple the normal amount of contributions. Also Reynolds was permitted to coordinate his campaign with the Republican Party to a degree that is normally illegal.

Davis’ most interesting argument is that since the purpose of campaign restrictions on large donations is to prevent corruption, the “Millionaires’ Amendment” itself promotes corruption, and that the law only exists to help incumbents.

The government argues that Davis doesn’t even have standing to complain, since Congressman Reynolds didn’t actually take advantage of those special legal advantages.