The Michigan State Court of Appeals 4-page decision Grebner v State can be read via this link. The 18-page dissent is at this link. Thanks to Thomas Jones for this.

The majority said that helping the two major political parties is a private benefit to those two parties. The dissent, on page 17, says, “While supporting (major) political party activities may serve the private purposes of those parties, such support is also a public purpose.” This thinking comes dangerously close to violating the Helsinki Accords. The United States pledged, when it signed the Helsinki Accords, that it would not “merge any political party with the government.”

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the Indiana voting rights case on January 9, at 10 a.m. The case is actually two combined cases, Indiana Democratic Party v Rokita, 07-25, and Crawford v Marion County Election Board, 07-21. The issue is Indiana’s law that requires most voters to show government photo-ID before voting at the polls.

On November 15, the federal court that is hearing Green Party of Connecticut v Garfield ruled that evidence-gathering in the case should proceed. The case was filed in 2006 to overturn the discriminatory parts of Connecticut’s public funding law. The state had tried to persuade the court to stop the evidence-gathering phase, until the state’s motion to dismiss the case is ruled on. But the judge decided to let discovery continue.

The law provides that any candidate for state office who wants public funding must raise a certain number of small contributions. The contribution levels are the same for every candidate. However, if the candidate is an independent, or a member of a party that had not run for that office in the preceding election, or had polled less than 1%, he or she must submit a petition signed by 10% of the voters, to get any funding at all; and a 20% petition to get equal funding.

Also, if the candidate is a member of a party that had run for that office in the last election, and had polled more than 1% but less than 10% of the vote, then the candidate cannot get any public funding at all, no matter how many signatures are collected.