[EL] grounds for Gingrich and/or Perry to sue for Virginia ballot access

[Volokh, Eugene]

                True, but wouldn’t the logic of the case apply as much to candidates as to initiatives?  I realize that some government interests play out differently in these contexts – for instance, the concern for quid pro quo corruption of candidates justifies restrictions on contributions to candidate campaigns, but not to initiative campaigns.  But I would think that the interests justifying restrictions on circulators would be roughly similarly applicable to candidate campaigns and to initiative campaigns – or am I missing something?

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Goldfeder, Jerry H.
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2011 9:55 AM
To: 'richardwinger at yahoo.com'; 'law-election at uci.edu'
Subject: Re: [EL] grounds for Gingrich and/or Perry to sue for Virginia ballot access

As Richard knows, the Colorado Buckley case relates to Initiatives, not candidates.

Jerry H. Goldfeder
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038
212 806 5857
917 680 3132
jgoldfeder at stroock.com
www.stroock.com/goldfeder

From: Richard Winger [mailto:richardwinger at yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2011 12:20 PM
To: law-election at uci.edu <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] grounds for Gingrich and/or Perry to sue for Virginia ballot access

Either Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich or both are free to sue Virginia State Board of Elections over the Virginia state law that wouldn't let out-of-state circulators work on their presidential primary petitions.

In 2000, Ralph Nader won injunctive relief against Illinois and West Virginia, after complaining that his petitions might have succeeded without the ban on out-of-state circulators.  The Nader decision isn't reported but was Nader 2000 Primary Committee v Illinois State Board of Elections, northern district, 00-cv-4401.  The West Virginia case is reported and is Nader 2000 Primary Committee v Hechler, 112 F Supp 2d 575 (s.d. W.V. 2000).

The US Supreme Court decision from 1999, Buckley v American Constitutional Law Foundation, suggests that bans on out-of-state circulators are unconstitutional, although it didn't settle that issue completely.  It did strike down a Colorado law that said circulators must be registered voters.  525 US 182.  Since then, bans on out-of-state circulators have been thrown out in the 6th, 7th, 9th, and 10th circuits, and in lesser courts in certain states not in those particular circuits.

Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147


________________________________
IRS Circular 230
Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS in Circular 230, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachment that does not explicitly state otherwise) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111224/ab3513c8/attachment.html>