On April 13, the Reform Party asked the 11th circuit to rehear part of its decision, in the case over whether the party must pay back $333,000 to the Federal Election Commission. The 11th circuit had refused to rule on whether it was proper for the U.S. District Court to tell the party not to spend any money on anything except repaying the debt. The 11th circuit’s justification for refusing to consider this, was that it said the party had not raised this point in the U.S. District Court.

However, the petition for rehearing proves that the party did raise this point in the U.S. District Court.

On April 15, the New Hampshire Libertarian Party held a state convention and nominated George Phillies for president. The national Libertarian Party won’t choose a presidential candidate until May 2008. Phillies is seeking the national nomination.

Under the United States federal structure, national party conventions actually have no legal ability to enforce their decision on any state, or any state party. There are many instances in U.S. history at which a state party chose a presidential candidate who was someone different than the choice of the national party. Under U.S. election laws, state parties choose candidates for presidential elector, and state parties are completely free to choose presidential elector candidates who are pledged to someone other than the national convention choice.

Thus in 1948, the Democratic Parties of Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina and Louisiana chose Strom Thurmond as their presidential candidate, and Harry Truman had to qualify as an independent in those states (in Alabama it was too late for Truman to qualify, so he was off the ballot). The Democratic Party of Alabama also nominated George Wallace for president in 1968 instead of Hubert Humphrey, and Humphrey was on the ballot as the nominee of a minor party. In 1912 the Republican Parties of California and South Dakota refused to put William Howard Taft on the ballot, and instead listed Theodore Roosevelt. In 2000 the Arizona Libertarian Party refused to list Harry Browne on the ballot and instead chose L. Neil Smith.

If George Phillies fails to win the national convention nomination next year, he is free to tell the New Hampshire Libertarian Party not to nominate him. However, the New Hampshire Libertarian Party says it will immediately start circulating a petition with Phillies’ name on it. If that petition is submitted, but Phillies resigns the NHLP nomination, and the NHLP asks the Secretary of State to let it substitute the actual choice of the national convention, no one is sure what would happen. New Hampshire’s Secretary of State, who has been in office almost 30 years, permitted John B. Anderson to substitute a new candidate for vice-president in 1980 (Anderson had listed Milton Eisenhower on the petition for vice-president, but the actual v-p candidate, chosen too late to be on the petition, was former Wisconsin Governor Patrick Lucey). But Gardiner says he won’t permit substitution for president. A lawsuit to force him to accept presidential substitution would be likely to win; all the precedents from lawsuits in other states on this issue are favorable.

Two bills pending in the California legislature would set up discriminatory public funding for state candidates. AB 583, by Assemblymember Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) applies to all state office. SB 536 by Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) just applies to Insurance Commissioner.

AB 583 is more favorable to candidates if they are members of a party that polled 10% for Governor, or 10% for the particular office involved, than other candidates. Favored candidates would need 500 $5 contributions to run for Assembly, 1,000 $5 contributions for State Senate, 7,500 $5 contributions for lesser statewide office, or 25,000 $5 contributions for Governor. If they met these hurdles, they would receive (for the general election) $400,000 if running for Assembly, $800,000 if running for State Senate, $2,000,000 if running for lesser statewide office, $15,000,000 if running for Governor.

Independent candidates would need to raise twice as many $5 contributions, for equal public funding; if they did not, they would receive nothing. Members of parties that hadn’t polled 10% in the past election for that office or for Governor would get 25% as much funding, if they raised half as many $5 contributions. They would get equal funding if they raised twice as many $5 contributions.

SB 536, dealing only with Insurance Commissioner public funding, would require members of parties that had polled 10% for Insurance Commissioner in the last election to receive 7,500 $5 contributions. Alternatively, if there were a party that had not polled 10% for Insurance Commissioner in the last election, but cast 20% of the total votes in the current primary, it would be treated equally (this provision seems designed to cover one of the major parties, in case that major party had failed to run anyone in the last election for Insurance Commissioner). All other Insurance Commissioner candidates would receive no public funding unless they submitted a petition signed by 5% of the last vote cast for Insurance Commissioner, in 89 days. For 2010, if this bill were enacted, that would be 416,270 signatures. The petition would say that the signers support the named candidate.