Today the 9th circuit released Van Susteren v Jones,
upholding a California law that bars anyone from
running in a partisan primary if that person has been
affiliated with another political party during any
part of the 12 months prior to the primary filing
deadline.  See www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0603%2F0157210.

In my opinion, the decision is faulty for failing to
acknowledge any of the precedents that supported the
plaintiff, a candidate for congress in the Libertarian
Party primary.  It fails to mention Tashjian v
Republican Party of Connecticut, which said on page
215 (479 US 208, 1986) that a state cannot forbid a
political party from nominating a non-member.  It
failed to mention Colorado Democratic Party v Meyer, a
1988 state court case that struck down a Colorado law
identical to the California law being challenged.

The Van Susteren 9th circuit opinion also says that
the law is there to protect the Libertarian Party. 
The decision failed to mention that the party had a
bylaw saying it wanted anyone to be able to run in its
primary who may not have met the prior disaffiliation
requirement.  The 9th circuit also failed to mention
San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee v
Eu, which said a state has no business protecting a
political party from its own possible folly.

The Van Susteren 9th circuit opinion also said that
the California law does not add to the qualifications
to run for Congress, even though in Schafer v Jones,
the 9th circuit had said the state can't prevent
anyone from running for congress because he isn't
registered to vote.  The 9th circuit also failed to
note the evidence that 10 members of Congress have
switched their party affiliation during the last 20
years, and the California law (which is unique in the
nation) would have prevented all of them from running
for re-election.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com