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.

On January 10, Unity08 sent its members a lengthy e-mail, announcing that it is giving up its goal of trying to create a ballot-qualified party across the nation, and then letting its members choose a presidential nominee who would use the organization’s ballot access.

The chief reason is lack of sufficient funding. Unity08 rightly lambasts the Federal Election Commission for a stifling ruling last year that limited individual contributions to Unity08 to only $5,000. The ruling was indefensible. The purpose of campaign contribution limits is to prevent bribery. In this case, Unity08 had no candidate, so there was no one who could have been bribed. There should have been no limit on individual contributions to Unity08, just as there was no limit to how much money Ross Perot donated to his Reform Party, when he founded it in 1995.

Unity08 might also have lambasted U.S. District Court Judge Richard Roberts, who has jurisdiction of Unity08’s lawsuit against that FEC ruling. All the briefs were filed more than 7 months ago, and he has not ruled in all that time. However, Unity08 said nothing about the lawsuit, except that it will keep the lawsuit going.

The full text of the e-mail is not yet on Unity08’s webpage, but it can be read at http://thirdpartywatch.com. The e-mail also cites the problem of getting a movement going that lacks either a very popular leader, or a burning issue. UPDATE: the statement is now on the Unity08 webpage.

An Oregon legislature committee will hold a work session on HB 3040 on January 15. This is the bill that legalizes fusion.