On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will not hear Green Party of Connecticut v Lenge, 10-795. This sad action maintains a 20-year record of that Court’s refusal to accept any case brought to it solely by a minor party or an independent candidate (not counting a 1997 case in which a Georgia Libertarian candidate challenged Georgia’s law requiring candidates for state office to take a drug test). Here is a brief Washington Post story about the Court’s refusal.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
How can they just come up with these ridiculous laws? It’s so blatantly undemocratic. Always goes back to the duopoly. What to do when the laws are stacked against you?
Pingback: U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Connecticut Green Party Public Funding Case | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
The ANTI-Democracy oligarchy continues.
P.R. and App.V.
They should have asked for a rehear in the lower court đ
Wretched, awful decision, affirming in effect a Connecticut law that is far more discriminatory even than the Federal Election Campaign Act. Liz Arnone is right: duopoly.
How about clingman v beaver or mcconnell v fec?
Pingback: Campaign finance in the spotlight | www.dupagegreens.org
#6, Clingman v Beaver was brought to the US Supreme Court by the state of Oklahoma, not by the Libertarian Party. Similarly for Arkansas Educational TV v Forbes, and McKenna v Twin Cities Area New Party. In all 3 of those cases, the minor party won in the court below so the state asked for US Supreme Court review and got it. That is part of the disturbing pattern. When a minor party wins in the court below, there is a 50-50 chance that the US Supreme Court will hear the state’s appeal. But when the minor party loses in the court below, there is a zero chance (over the last 20 years).
In case anyone thinks of Burdick v Takushi, that case was brought by a Democrat, Alan Burdick, not an independent or minor party person.
Many of us who are members of third parties or who are unaffiliated voters know that the Connecticut Citizenâs Election Program (CEP) in its present form is a rigged political insiders game that benefits the two largest parties in CT while excluding legitimate candidates from equal funding.
Recently the Green Party nominated me as their candidate for the office of CT Sec of The State (SOTS) and I am already on the ballot based on the fact that I received almost 18,000 votes for SOTS in 2006 on the Green party Line. Under CEP my Republican and Democratic Party opponents have to raise $75,000 in order get a $375,000 grant for the August primary and a $750,000 grant for the general election for SOTS. Not only do I have to raise the $75,000 in small donations as my opponents, but under CEP I am required to collect over 208,000 valid signatures to qualify for a $750,000 grant for the November election. How many signatures do my Republican and Democratic opponents have to collect under the CEP to get their huge grants? The answer is none.
The recent reversal of Count 1 of Federal Judge Underhillâs decision in the case of Green Party vs. Garfield by the 2nd District Federal Appellate court and the inability of the U.S. Supreme court to see the injustice in this reversal legalizes these draconian petitioning requirements. We assert that this recent reversal props up a discriminatory state sponsored subsidy program that increases the free speech rights of the larger parties while simultaneously reducing the free speech rights of smaller political parties in CT. It is important to note that the Appellate court decision was not unanimous since one of the three judges voted for 2nd district Judge Underhillâs original view that the CEP violates the 1st and 14th amendment rights of CTâs minor political parties. Over 42% of registered voters in CT are not affiliated with a political party or are a member of a minor party and yet these citizens are being given short shrift when it comes to equal and fair participation in the CEP.
I am also banned from even applying for CEP primary grant money because minor parties and unaffiliated voters in CT cannot participate in any way in the CT state sponsored and state paid for primaries
To get one third of the full grant under CEP in the general election smaller parties are required to collect the valid petition signatures of 10% of the people who voted in the last election or we must win 10% of the vote in the current election thereby avoiding petitioning for a one third grant in 2014. This one third grant from CEP does not fulfill the constitutional requirement of equal protection guaranteed under the 14th amendment and turns smaller parties and independent voters into third class citizens because a full grant is only given at the 20% petitioning or voting level.
Many of us in the third party movement know that the CEP in its present form is a rigged game and is a classic example of the solution being the problem. The CEP is a Democratic and Republican party protection act as presently written. If our Green Party ligation was a business monopoly lawsuit the Federal Trade Commission would probably invoke the federal antitrust laws against those who created this law. This law is also a prevention of fair politics law that affirms the Orwellian idea that all political parties are equal but some political parties are more equal than others.