Arizona State Court of Appeals Explains Why it Prevented New Higher Campaign Contribution Limits from Going Into Effect

Posted on by
Reply

On October 24, the Arizona State Court of Appeals issued this explanation for last week’s order, which kept the old lower Arizona campaign contribution limits in effect. The 2013 legislature had passed a bill greatly increasing the amount of money an individual may donate to a candidate for state office. Those new limits are now enjoined. The State Court of Appeals decision says that the bill is probably unconstitutional because the Arizona Constitution says that bills that affect the state’s public financing system can only be passed by a three-fourths vote of each house of the Legislature. The legislature had argued that the contribution limits are not intrinsically part of the public funding program, but the court disagreed.

The court did not give any guidance on how to handle the problem that some 2014 candidates have already received campaign donations in excess of the old limits. The case is Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v Brain, 1 ca-SA-13-0239. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

Tennessee Libertarian Ballot Access Hearing Set

Posted on by
Reply

U.S. District Court Judge William Haynes will hear Tomasik v Goins, 3:13cv-1118, on October 31 at 3:30 p.m. in Nashville, Tennessee. This is the Libertarian Party’s lawsuit to get on the ballot for the upcoming special legislative election in Memphis in December. The candidate, James Tomasik, will definitely be on the ballot, because he was able to complete the independent candidate petition, which only requires 25 signatures. The issue is whether he should have the label “Libertarian” on the ballot next to his name.

The Libertarian Party has never been a ballot-qualified party in Tennessee, but the law on how newly-qualifying parties get on the ballot was struck down on June 17, 2013. The state is appealing that decision to the Sixth Circuit. The new Libertarian case, which was filed on October 9, 2013, is especially strong because Tennessee doesn’t actually have any statutory procedure for a party to get on the ballot in a special election. Once the special election is announced, it is already too late for a newly-qualifying party to get on the ballot.

Norwich, Connecticut Holds a Three-Party Mayoral Debate

Posted on by
Reply

Norwich, like all Connecticut municipalities, uses partisan elections for its city elections. On the evening of October 23, the Republican Mayor, who is running for re-election on November 5, debated his Democratic and Libertarian opponents. The debate can be watched at this link.

Norwich is also electing six city council members. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are each running four nominees; the Libertarian Party has five nominees. One can see the Norwich ballot here.

Columbus State Community College Expands Free Speech Zone on Campus

Posted on by
Reply

On October 23, the plaintiff who had challenged Columbus (Ohio) State Community College’s rules for free speech activity on campus settled his lawsuit. The college, which formerly only permitted leafleting, petitioning, and other First Amendment activity at two tiny areas amounting to less than 1% of the campus, has agreed to change its rules and permit this activity on most outdoor areas of the campus. Here is the settlement agreement. The case had been Anderson v Harrison, 2:13cv838, s.d. Here is a story about the settlement. Thanks to Alliance Alert for the link.

Michigan Expects to Respond to Libertarian Party’s Cert Petition on “Sore Loser” Laws and Presidential Primaries

Posted on by
Reply

Attorneys for the Secretary of State of Michigan have notified the U.S. Supreme Court that the state expects to file a response to the Michigan Libertarian Party’s brief in Libertarian Party of Michigan v Ruth Johnson, 13-421. The state says it needs more time, and obtained an extension to December 4 to file its brief. The Court has not agreed to hear this case; the briefs at this point are just involved with whether the Court should hear it.

The issue is whether the state should have kept Gary Johnson on the November 2012 ballot or not. The state removed him because his name had appeared on the ballot in the February 2012 Republican presidential primary. The lower courts agreed with the Secretary of State’s decision.