On June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled part of the McCain-Feingold federal campaign law unconstitutional, as applied to broadcast ads paid for by a corporation that mention a candidate for federal office but do not mention the upcoming election. Federal Election Commission v Wisconsin Right to Life, no. 06-969. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the decision, but his opinion was joined only by Justice Alito. Justices Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas would have held that part of the McCain-Feingold law to be unconstitutional on its face, not just as applied to certain types of ads.

This outcome should make it somewhat easier for minor parties to someday challenge another part of the McCain-Feingold law, the part that limits the amount of money that individuals can contribute to new or minor parties. The Supreme Court’s 2003 decision, upholding McCain-Feingold on its face, had said that the act could still be challenged by certain types of plaintiffs, in as-applied challenges. Since one type of as-applied challenge has now succeeded, it is more plausible that other such challenges will succeed. The outcome will probably also help Unity08 to win its pending lawsuit against the FEC. The issue in Unity08’s case is the FEC decision that no one may give or loan Unity08 more than $5,000.

A group of Washington state minor party activists have been meeting with each other, and have finished drafting proposed legislation which would improve ballot access for minor parties. Currently, Washington is the only state in the western half of the United States which lacks any procedure by which a group can transform itself into a qualified party, in advance of any particular election. Instead, all Washington state has are procedures for the nominees of unqualified parties to get on the ballot. If one of those statewide nominees gets 5% of the vote, then and only then does that group become a qualified party.

The draft bill would provide that if a group submits 1,000 signatures by May of an election year, then it is a qualified minor party. It then may nominate by convention, and all its nominees are automatically placed on the general election ballot. The draft also provides that if one of that party’s statewide nominees polls 1% of the vote, it retains its qualified status.

The group is looking for legislators who will sponsor the bill. To get in touch with the group, contact Linde Knighton at waprog2@yahoo.com.

Ever since 2006, the Independence Party of New York has been engaged in an internal battle between the state officers and the branch of the party in New York city. First, the state officers tried to expel all the New York city activists who are allied with Lenora Fulani, but the Supreme Court in both Manhatten and Brooklyn ruled that state party officers could not do that. Those cases were McCarthy v Conroy, Kings County 26041-06, and McKay v Mandell, New York County 109502-06. They were issued in August and September 2006.

Then, the state officers passed a Bylaw giving themselves power to remove any county party officers, even if those county party officers had been chosen by county committees that are composed of elected precinct committeemembers. Having passed that bylaw, the state officers tried to remove the county officers in New York city. But a Supreme Court in Brooklyn ruled the bylaw conflicts with state election law and is invalid. That case was Conroy v State Committee of Independence Party, Kings County 700012-07, issued March 12, 2007.

Then, the state officers passed a new Bylaw on June 10, 2007. It says that in cities of more than 1,000,000 population, the State Committee, not the county committees, has the power to designate candidates. This means the state officers, not the local officers, may decide whether to let candidates who are not members of the party seek the nomination of the Independence Party. But the rule only applies to New York city, not the remainder of the state. The Fulani forces filed a new lawsuit on June 10, arguing that the new Bylaw is also contrary to the election code, and also to the State Constitution, since the Bylaw doesn’t apply statewide, but merely to New York city. The new lawsuit is also called Conroy v State Committee of the Independence Party, no. 700025-07, Kings Co.