New third party case In Green Party v. New
York State of Elections, a U.S. District Court judge in the Eastern District
of New York has issued a preliminary injunction requiring New York state
to let voters register (or "enroll") in the Green Party, even though the
Green Party isn't a qualified party. The opinion is available here. From
the opinion:
I conclude that New York’s voter enrollment scheme: (1) imposes a severe
burden on the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights; and (2) unreasonably discriminates
against minor parties and their voters. The State Board has failed to present
a compelling and narrowly tailored state interest in denying minor parties
and their voters access to the state’s voter enrollment scheme. The purported
interest in preventing voter confusion is unpersuasive. The absence of any
administrative or financial burden if relief is granted further counsels in
favor of injunctive relief. The plaintiffs have therefore easily demonstrated
a likelihood of success on the merits of their case.
The opinion also contains a multi-colored Appendix "B" listing the qualification
practices in all 50 states.
I was amused by New York's failed attempt to keep Richard Winger from testifying
as an expert on ballot access laws. Richard is one of the leading authorities
in the area, and publishes the widely respected Ballot Access News.
>From the opinion's footnote 9:
[T]he principal attack on Winger’s testimony is that he is not qualified
to provide expert testimony on voter enrollment and ballot access laws in
the United States and on the use of voter enrollment information by political
parties. See State Board’s Supp. Br. dated Jan. 23, 2003 (“State Board’s
Supp. Br.”) at 2-4. The arguments include the following: “While claiming
to be an expert in all fifty states, [Winger] has only testified in court
or provided affidavits in court proceedings in thirty states.” Id. at 3.
New Law Review Note on BCRA's Constitutionality
A new law review student comment considers the constitutionality of BCRA's
electioneering communications provisions. It is Andrew Pratt, Comment, The
End of Sham Issue Advocacy: The Case to Uphold Electioneering Communications
in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 87 Minnesota Law Review
1663 (May 2003). From the title, it should not surprise you that the author's
conclusion is the following:
Complaint against John Edwards filed
with the FEC See this
A.P. report.
"Nonagenarians Against Cynicism" See this
column by Eric Alterman discussing money in politics and the BCRA decision.
--
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlaw.blogspot.com