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.
Today the Michigan Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that giving the two major parties monopoly access to the list of primary voters is unconstitutional. This deals a possible blow to to Michigan political leaders’ hopes of holding a presidential primary on Jan. 15. It is possible that the Michigan Supreme Court will take the case, so it may not yet be finally decided.
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.
This newspaper story, published November 16 in the Concord, New Hampshire Monitor, describes the hearing held in Libertarian Party of New Hampshire v Gardner. The story seems to suggest that the judge is skeptical of the law, which provides that qualified parties may buy an inexpensive copy of the statewide voter registration list, but no one else may obtain it. The Secretary of State himself, even though he is the defendant, is opposed to the law.
If the New Hampshire Libertarian Party wins this case, it will be the first time a minor party has ever won an election law lawsuit in New Hampshire. New Hampshire is one of only 2 states in which no minor party or independent candidate has ever won an election law constitutional case. The other state is Montana.
On November 15, a U.S. District Court Judge in Idaho heard the state’s motion to dismiss Beck v Ysursa, the case over whether the Republican Party may have a closed primary. Judge Mikel Williams promised to rule quickly. Here is a short media story about the hearing.
