US Supreme Court Will Hear Indiana Photo-ID Case

Posted on by September 25, 2007
Reply

On September 25, the U.S. Supreme Court said it will hear the Democratic Party’s appeal against the Indiana law requiring voters at the polls to show photo-ID, in order to vote. There are technically two cases, which are combined: Indiana Democratic Party v Rokita, 07-25, and Crawford v Marion County Election Board, 07-21. Both sides on the Indiana case had already filed briefs.

The Court did not say anything today about the Pennsylvania ballot access case, Rogers v Cortes, no. 06-1721. Pennsylvania had not filed a response. The Court almost never takes a case unless it has heard from both sides. If the Court is interested in the Pennsylvania ballot access case, it will ask Pennsylvania to file a response. If the Court has decided to do this, we will find out on October 1. The Court will release most of its September 24 orders on October 1. The only information that the Court released on September 25 are the names of the cases that it definitely decided to hear (also, it refused to hear two particular cases, both of which involve capital punishment). It chose 17 cases. In all 17 cases, the Court had heard from both sides first.

Unity08 Has No Registrants in Los Angeles or San Francisco Counties

Posted on by September 24, 2007
Reply

Six months ago, Unity08 filed paperwork with the California Secretary of State, asking that elections officials tally how many people register as members of Unity08. If Unity08 can persuade 88,991 Californians to register as members by December 31, 2007, it will be a qualified party in 2008.

California elections officials are in the process of tallying up how many registered voters there are in each party (qualified or not) as of September 4, 2007. This is just an interim tally that doesn’t affect which parties will be on the 2008 ballot. And Unity08 has not yet begun asking Californians to register into Unity08. Nevertheless, one might have thought that a few people would take the initiative and register as members. However, according to elections officials in Los Angeles and San Francisco Counties, not a single person has registered with Unity08 as of September 4. Soon we will have data for all the counties of California for that September 4 tally. UPDATE: Unity08 also has no registrants in San Diego or Orange Counties, which are the most populous counties in the state after Los Angeles County. But it has 2 in Santa Barbara County.

New Jersey Libertarian Likely to be First Minor Party or Independent to Qualify for New Jersey Legislative Public Funding

Posted on by September 24, 2007
Reply

New Jersey holds state legislative elections on November 6, 2007. This year, for the first time, New Jersey has a public funding program for legislative candidates, but only in 3 districts. Libertarian nominee James Scheurer, a financial manager in West Windsor, New Jersey, expects to qualify in his district, the 14th district. If he does qualify, he will be the first minor party or independent legislative candidate in New Jersey to receive public funding.

The New Jersey program is highly discriminatory. If a Republican or Democrat receives $10 contributions from 400 individuals in his or her district, the Democrat or Republican receives $46,000. But any other candidate who receives $10 contributions from 400 individuals in the district gets $21,000. Furthermore, for every $10 contribution beyond 400, the Democratic or Republican gets another $1,200. But for every $10 contribution beyond 400 that any other candidate gets, he or she only gets an additional $52. The maximum that a Democrat or Republican can receive is $534,375; but the maximum that anyone else can receive is $53,000.

The Connecticut public funding law, which is also discriminatory, starts in 2008. The ACLU filed a lawsuit in 2006 on behalf of the Green Party against the discriminatory aspects of the Connecticut law, and a decision on whether a trial is needed to resolve the Connecticut case is expected any day now.

The public funding laws in Maine and Arizona do not discriminate for or against anyone on the basis of partisan affiliation or lack of partisan affilation. The bill for public funding in New Hampshire does not discriminate, nor does the initiative being circulated in Alaska. However, the California bill that will be taken up by the 2008 legislature does discriminate.

Alaskan Independence Party Asks 9th Circuit to Let it Exclude Disloyal Members from Running in its Primaries

Posted on by September 24, 2007
Reply

Back in 2006, the Alaskan Independence Party filed a federal lawsuit, arguing that it has a constitutional right to prevent people who are registered as members of that party from running in the party’s primary, if those individuals have shown themselves disloyal to the party. The party lost the case in U.S. District Court on February 19, 2007. The party is appealing to the 9th circuit and all briefs have now been filed. The case is Winkelman v State of Alaska, 07-35186.

The lawsuit was filed because Dan DeNardo sued the Alaskan Independence Party for $10,000,000 in 2004, because the party urged its members to vote in its own primary against DeNardo, and for Jerry Sanders, for U.S. Senate. DeNardo lost the primary by a vote of 1,068 to 273, prompting him to file the lawsuit, which is still pending. It is in Alaska State Court and is called DeNardo v Winkelman, Superior Court, 3AN-05-9352. DeNardo ran for Lieutenant Governor in the party’s primary in 2006 and won that primary.

States in which parties have been permitted to exclude candidates from running in their primaries, because of the candidate’s beliefs, or because the candidate had been disloyal to the party, include Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Missouri, and New York. Unfortunately the Alaskan Independence Party’s briefs don’t mention any of that. The state’s brief belittles the Alaskan Independence Party by pointing out that the party lets any registered voter vote in its primary (Alaskan law gives each party a choice on whether to let members of other parties vote in its primary).

The Alaska Libertarian Party is a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit, although the lawsuit does not mention any problem that it has had with disloyal or unprincipled candidates filing in its primary.

Ballot Access Rally at U.S. Supreme Court

Posted on by September 24, 2007
Reply

On September 24, Greens and Libertarians rallied on the north edge of the U.S. Supreme Court Building, hoping to draw public attention to today’s U.S. Supreme Court conference. That conference, which goes on all day, in private, is where the justices decide which cases to hear. On the schedule for today’s conference is Rogers v Cortes, the Pennsylvania ballot access case.

Even though the U.S. Supreme Court itself decided over a decade ago that sidewalks around the Court building are public fora, and that it is legal for demonstrations to be held there, various police officers tried to discourage the rally. The rally was being filmed by documentary film-maker Peter Hwosch. As the speakers were starting, the lawn sprinklers came on just where the group was positioned (the lawn sprinklers didn’t come on anywhere else). The group moved further down the Maryland Avenue sidewalk, but police with police dogs then ordered the group to vacate Maryland Avenue sidewalks entirely, and go to a more remote location. The group complied. It is most unlikely that any U.S. Supreme Court Justices saw the rally.

The Court won’t announce any decisions about which cases are being heard until Tuesday morning, September 25. At the time, cases that have been chosen will be listed. In the Pennsylvania ballot access, it is most likely that if the Court is interested in it at all, it will ask Pennsylvania to respond, but such an order would not be released on September 25; instead it would be on October 1.