Tea Party Leadership Fund Asks FEC for Exemption from Disclosing its Contributors

Posted on by
Reply

On September 16, the Tea Party Leadership Fund asked the Federal Election Commission to grant an exemption, so that the Fund would not need to disclose the names of people who contribute to the Fund. Here is the 13-page request from the Fund.

The letter says “The TEA Party is not a political party as defined by FECA because it does not nominate candidates to federal office.” It also says, “The TEA Party and its supporters are political outsiders untethered to – and often at odds with – both major political parties.” That sentence is likely to draw skepticism.

The request is based on the U.S. Supreme Court decisions that exempted the NAACP from disclosing its membership to certain southern state governments in the 1950’s, and the U.S. Supreme Court 1982 decision that exempted the Socialist Workers Party from disclosing its contributors and also its expenditures. Lower courts have granted similar exemptions to the Communist, Socialist Action, and Freedom Socialist Parties.

Page nine lists instances of government harassment of the TEA Party, and page ten describes examples of private harassment against the TEA Party. Page eleven then lists many instances when certain members of Congress made very hostile statements about the TEA Party. The request explains that the U.S. Supreme Court decision concerning the Socialist Workers Party said that groups making exemptions can use evidence that concerns similar groups, not just the group that is seeking the exemption.

The request does not present evidence that government agents infiltrated the Fund, or any other TEA Party. By contrast, the Socialist Workers Party and the Communist Party were able to prove that many government employees had infiltrated those parties, especially FBI agents.

Constitution Party Nominee for Pennsylvania County Office Wins Ballot Access Lawsuit

Posted on by
Reply

On September 17, Constitution Party nominee Jim Barr, running for the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Council, won his lawsuit in lower state court. His petition had been challenged by his Republican opponent. The judge initially ruled that because some of the signatures were illegible, the candidate had not established that he had the required 250 valid signatures. But the judge’s initial ruling said that if Barr could bring the signers to court in a later proceeding, and if enough of them testified that they did sign, then he could get back on the ballot.

No one expected Barr to accept the judge’s invitation, but he did. He subpoened almost all the voters who signed, whose signature had been ruled illegible. It worked, as this story explains. Barr did not have an attorney and represented himself. Thanks to Ed Bortz for the link.

New Lawsuit Filed Against Texas Photo Voter-ID Law

Posted on by
Reply

On September 17, the Texas NAACP and the Mexican American Caucus of the Texas House filed a new lawsuit against the 2011 law that requires voters at the polls to show one of six types of government photo-ID. The 2011 law still hasn’t been implemented.

The new lawsuit is Texas State Conference of NAACP v Steen, in the Southern District, Corpus Christi Division. This case will almost surely be combined with the lawsuit filed by the federal government in August against the same law, which is called U.S.A. v State of Texas. Here is the complaint in the new case. It argues that the law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Green Party Wins First Seat in Norwegian Parliament

Posted on by
Reply

On September 9, Norway held a Parliamentary election. Eight parties won at least one seat, including the Green Party, which won its first seat with 2.8% of the national vote. See this wikipedia article about the election.

The eight parties which won at least one seat are: Labor 55, Copnservative 48, Progress 29, Christian Democratic 10, Center 10, Liberal 9, Socialist Left 7, Green 1. Thirteen other parties participated in the election but did not win any seats. Norway uses proportional representation. Thanks to Green Party News for this news.

Gary Johnson Campaign Waits a Ruling from U.S. District Court on Whether Discovery can Proceed in Lawsuit Against Commission on Presidential Debates

Posted on by
Reply

As reported earlier, Gary Johnson and James Gray, the 2012 Libertarian national ticket, sued the Commission on Presidential Debates last year. The CPD rules say that anyone who is on the ballot in states containing a majority of electoral college votes, and who is at 15% in three national polls, may be included in the general election presidential debates.

Last year, several polls were commissioned in which the respondents were asked whether they prefer President Obama, or Gary Johnson. No other candidates were mentioned. The results of all three polls showed Johnson far above 15%. The results of these polls were presented to the Commission on Presidential Debates, but the Commission ignored them and did not invite Johnson or Gray into the debates.

The lawsuit is still alive. On September 4, both sides presented a joint report to U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Olguin, over whether the Johnson campaign is entitled to engage in discovery. The Johnson campaign seeks to learn the manner in which the criteria for debate inclusion were set, a history of any changes in the criteria, and information about communications between the Commission and the major party national committees. Defendants want the case dismissed without having permitted any discovery. Probably the next event in this lawsuit will be a ruling from the Judge over whether discovery may go forward. The case is Johnson v Commission on Presidential Debates, central district of California, 8:12-cv-1600.

Many Election Law Cases are Pending in the U.S. Supreme Court

Posted on by
Reply

The U.S. Supreme Court returns from its summer recess next month. There are several election law cert petitions before the court, and several more are likely to be filed in the coming month.

The only election law case that the Court has already accepted for review is McCutcheon v Federal Election Commission, 12-536, which will be argued on October 8. The issue is a federal law that limits how much money an individual may donate to all federal candidates combined.

At least three other election law petitions are pending:

1. Worley v Detzner, 13-333, over whether groups that spend small amounts of money on initiative campaigns (for or against) must form a PAC. This is a Florida case.

2. Corsi v Ohio Election Commission, 12-1442, over whether politics bloggers who have any association whatsoever with at least one other individual must form a PAC.

3. Judd v Libertarian Party of Virginia, 13-231, over residency requirements for circulators.

In addition, more cert petitions are likely to be filed soon: (1) a Libertarian Party petition over whether the Michigan “sore loser” law applies to the state’s presidential primary; (2) a Nevada Republican petition over whether the party’s presidential elector candidates have standing to challenge the “None of these candidates” ballot choice; (3) a Montana state government petition over its law making it illegal for political parties to endorse or oppose candidates for judicial office; (4) a Ralph Nader petition over whether he has standing to challenge the Federal Election Commission’s refusal to act on Nader’s complaint that the Democratic Party didn’t declare its 2004 expenses in challenging Nader’s ballot positions. There may be other election law cert petitions soon as well.

UPDATE: there is also James v FEC, 12-683, a case docketed with the U.S. Supreme Court on November 30, 2012, which the Court has not yet acted on. Like McCutcheon v FEC, it challenges the federal law that limits the total amount individuals may donate to federal candidates. The plaintiff, Virginia James, accepts the federal law that sets a limit of $117,000 for individuals in a two-year period to donate to all federal candidates, political parties, and PAC’s. However, she argues that she should be free to distribute her spending with more flexibility than the federal law allows. Federal law sets a $46,200 limit for contributions to all federal candidates. She wants to use some of the money that she is legally permitted to spend on parties and PAC’s to instead exceed the $46,200 limit to candidates. The U.S. Supreme Court had set this case aside on March 15, 2013, and will act on it after the Court decides the McCutcheon case.