In March, the U.S. Supreme Court had given the state of Washington a lengthy delay in its deadline for filing briefs in the “Top-two” case. That new deadline was to have been May 14. However, the state has asked for yet another extension, and its brief is now due May 21. The case is Washington State v Republican Party, 06-730 and 06-713.
In March, the U.S. Supreme Court had given the state of Washington a lengthy delay in its deadline for filing briefs in the “Top-two” case. That new deadline was to have been May 14. However, the state has asked for yet another extension, and its brief is now due May 21. The case is Washington State v Republican Party, 06-730 and 06-713.
On May 8, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat, signed SB 270. It moves the petition deadline for independent candidates (for office other than president) from June to March. This will force independent candidates to collect signatures in the winter, or in the year before the election. He signed the bill despite the fact that in 1990, a lower Montana state court held the identical deadline unconstitutional. The State Supreme Court had then vacated that decision, finding that the plaintiff did not have standing, but not expressing any opinion about the merits.
Governor Schweitzer still hasn’t signed or vetoed SB 96, which makes it illegal for out-of-state circulators to work in the state, and which makes it illegal to pay circulators per signature. He must make up his mind by Friday, May 18.
The CATO Institute, Reason Foundation, and The Center for Competitive Politics have filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court election case called N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v Lopez Torres. This is the first time either CATO or Reason Foundation has ever filed such a brief in a ballot access case. CATO and the Reason Foundation are well-known libertarian think-tanks. The Center for Competitive Politics was founded by former FEC Commissioner Brad Smith and others, which usually focuses on fighting restrictive campaign finance laws.
The brief, authored by First Amendment specialist Erik S. Jaffe, argues the true “political party rights” position in this case. It advocates that the U.S. Supreme Court strike down the New York state law mandating particular procedures that qualified parties must use to nominate candidates for State Supreme Court Justice. It says, “Whether a private political expressive association (i.e., a political party) chooses to reach its decisions by emulating democratic elections and polling its membership or instead adopts a more hierarchical decision-making process, is of concern only to the association and its members, not the government.”
The brief is useful for making a persuasive argument in favor of autonomy for political parties. The brief is even more useful for exposing the muddy thinking of the Republican National Committee amicus brief. The Republican National Committee brief waxes eloquently in favor of autonomy for political parties. But then it comes out in support of a state law that compels parties to use a very flawed method for choosing delegates to nominating conventions, whether they like it or not.
On May 14, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Kidwell v City of Union, Ohio, no. 06-1226. This was the case over whether a government can use taxpayer money to pay for advertising, to help defeat an initiative. The 6th circuit had ruled 2-1 that such expenditures do not violate the U.S. Constitution.
