[EL] McCutcheon reaction and a question

[Richard Winger]

The US Supreme Court has refused all cert petitions filed by minor party and independent candidates relating to election law during the last 22 years.  That is over 60 cases, some of which Scotusblog felt were cert-worthy (I am excluding cases in which the Democratic or Republican Party was a co-plaintiff, and I am excluding the Georgia Libertarian Party case on whether all candidates for state office can be required to take drug tests, because that was handled as a 4th amendment case).

Among the cases the Court refused to hear are (1) whether it is constitutional for the District of Columbia Board of Elections to refuse to count valid write-in votes, even though D.C. has write-in space on the ballot and has procedures for declared write-in candidates to file declarations of candidacy; (2) whether "sore loser" laws can be applied to presidential primaries; (3) whether it is constitutional for Alabama to require an independent US House candidate to obtain more signatures that an independent presidential candidate; (4) whether the top-two system violates voting rights for members and supporters of minor parties; (5) whether it is constitutional to provide that independent candidates must obtain the signatures of 20% of the voters in order to qualify for the same public funding that major party members can get with no petition at all; (6) whether it is constitutional for Georgia to have such onerous ballot access restrictions that no minor
 party candidate for regularly-scheduled US House elections has qualified since the law was passed in 1943; (7) whether it is constitutional for Illinois to require as many as 18,000 signatures for US House candidates in years not following redistricting even though the state requires exactly 5,000 signatures in years after redistricting; (8) whether it is constitutional for Massachusetts to have no means for a petitioning candidate for president to get on the ballot unless the vice-presidential running mate's identity is known at the start of the petition drive; (9) whether it is constitutional for New Hampshire to print the names of two presidential candidates on the November ballot, both with the label "Libertarian", even though only one of those individuals had actually been nominated by the state & national Libertarian Party: (10) whether it is constitutional for North Dakota to bar all minor party candidates for the legislature from the general
 election ballot unless between 10% and 15% of the primary voters choose to vote in a minor party primary; (11) whether it is constitutional for Pennsylvania to put petitioning candidates at risk of court costs of up to $100,000 if they submit a petition that is found to lack enough valid signatures; (12) whether it is constitutional for Texas to require an independent presidential candidate to obtain 60% more signatures than are needed for a new party or an independent candidate for non-presidential statewide office and to file the signatures a month before minor parties must file their petition; (13) whether it is constitutional for Hawaii to require six times more signatures for an independent presidential candidate than an entire new party.


 
Richard Winger
415-922-9779415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147


________________________________
 From: "Shockley, John" <shockley at augsburg.edu>
To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> 
Cc: "law-election at uci.edu" <law-election at uci.edu> 
Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2014 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: [EL] McCutcheon reaction and a question
 


Dear All:

Unlike Rick, I haven't read the McCutcheon opinion, but I've got a reaction and a question:  Considering all the possible cases the Supreme Court could take (on First Amendment issues and everything else), I find it fascinating that the five majority justices would decide that whether a federal ban on contributions over the $123,200 limit ($246,400 for a couple) would merit hearing as one of their few cases this year.  This is obvious a very important right (of free speech!) for the five justices.  

My question is this:  Will any members of this listserve now plan to take part in this very important right the Supreme Court has given to ALL of us?  At the larger level, I also wonder what percent of the American people will actually be able to use this new right?

Yours,
John Shockley
Augsburg College (semi-retired)






_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election


Call
Send SMS
Add to Skype
You'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140403/1184aa53/attachment.html>