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

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

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.

DiMaio Lawsuit Assumes New Importance In Florida Primary Date Dispute

Now that the Florida Democratic Party has decided not to comply with national Democratic Party rules over the date of Florida’s presidential primary, the lawsuit DiMaio v Democratic National Committee & Florida Democratic Party (middle district, 8:07-cv-1552) assumes greater importance. That case was filed in federal court on August 30, and both the national and state Democratic Parties will be answering the complaint on September 25. The lawsuit argues that Florida Democratic voters are being disenfranchised in the process of choosing a Democratic presidential candidate. The lawsuit argues that it isn’t the voters’ fault if the national and state parties can’t agree, but that the result is that the Florida Democratic voters will be losing their input if the dispute isn’t resolved one way or another.

Illinois Greens Determined to Have a Presidential Primary

The Illinois Green Party is entitled to a presidential primary, but the state won’t hold one unless at least two candidates qualify for that primary. Illinois law requires all candidates in a presidential primary to submit 3,000 signatures, and they are due in November 2007. Therefore, the Illinois Green Party is helping four Greens with their primary petitions. The four are Kent Mesplay, Jared Ball, Kat Swift and Jesse Johnson.