news of the day 7/9/04

Kaus on Kerry Opting Out of General Election Public Financing

Mickey Kaus has been blogging here (and scroll up) on whether John Kerry could easily get around rules that prevent him from spending money he's raising now during the general election period if Kerry opts for public financing.

I think the strategy Kaus sets forth for Kerry would be too risky---everyone will be watching his books very carefully for such shenanigans. In any case, Kerry has a much easier solution. He can simply give his surplus funds to the DNC to use, just as the Bush campaign has said it will give funds to the RNC.

"Michigan Republicans Gather Names for Nader"

A.P. offers this report.

Who Needs Conventions?

Joshua Spivak writes this Chicago Tribune oped, "The vestigial tail of U.S. politics; The political conventions are coming and they're turning out to be expensive sleeping pills."

Car Dealer Ads as Electioneering Communications?

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel offers Name Recognition Cuts Both Ways for Darrow; Campaign Law May Limit Car Dealership Ads."

California E-Voting Decision Now Posted

You can find it here.

Appellate Court to hold hearing on whether California's Proposition 60 Should Be Removed from the Ballot

Following up on this post, the Third Appellate District of the Court of Appeal in California has issued this alternative writ, asking for opposition and scheduling oral argument for July 26. [Disclosure: I am a consultant to Californians for an Open Primary, which brought this suit.]

Guam primary ruling

See this news report, with a very odd decision of the court:

But in future elections, the Guam Election Commission must contact the chairmen of the island's recognized political parties to determine whether they continue to support open primary elections, Lamorena ordered.

If any party decides to hold a closed primary, then the primary election will be considered closed for all political parties, and voters must declare their party affiliation before receiving a ballot, Lamorena ordered. The ballot they receive would be for that party only. "

Usually, the jurisdiction's laws would prevail unless a party objects. I have never heard of asking for permission from the parties before enforcing a law. Stranger still is the idea that if one party wants a closed primary, it is closed for all. That itself wouldm appear to violate the constitutional rights of parties that want an open primary.

"Kerry, Edwards: Fla. Votes to Be Counted"

A.P. offers this report.

"Has the Time Come for Touchscreen Voting?

David Pogue offers this sensible e-column on the controversy.

"Muzzling Moore"

Ryan Sager offers this oped in the New York Post. The oped has almost the same headline as an earlier Post editorial (reversing positions from the Post's first editorial on this topic). See here.

"Ruling Closes Kansas GOP's Primary"

A.P. offers this report, which begins: "The Kansas Republican Party chairman had no authority to open the Aug. 3 primary to independent voters, a district judge ruled Wednesday. Judge Charles Andrews ordered Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh not to allow independents to vote in the primary, as directed by state chairman Dennis Jones on June 4." The article suggests a constitutional challenge was not properly before the judge. A constitutional challenge should be successful under Tashjian and California Democratic Party v. Jones, which give parties the right to object to the form of primary put in place by the state.
UPDATE: Ed Still explained here that the problem was that the GOP apparently did not vote properly to include the independent vote.

-- 
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://electionlawblog.org