Federal District Court Grants Summary Judgment for Washington State in Remand of Washington State Grange Case

Via Ballot Access News comes a link to this opinion issued by the federal district court on remand in the Washington State Grange case. As I expected, the court rejected the arguments that the top two primary was unconstitutional, either because it confused voters into thinking the top-two primary was a party primary or for other reasons (such as by analogy to trademark claims). The Supreme Court's earlier opinion, while not dictating this result, certainly suggested the parties would have a hard time showing confusion if, as Washington State does, the official ballot materials make clear that voters are not voting in a party primary.

An appeal is apparently coming but I would not bet any money on the parties getting a reversal in the Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court (except perhaps a temporary win on grounds that the issue of confusion was more suitably addressed at trial rather than through summary judgment).

"The Biggest Political Player You've Never Heard Of"

Fortune offers this report.

"Charities Should Reject Senator's Offer on Politicking"

Suzanne Garment and Leslie Lenkowsky have written this opinion piece for the Chronicle of Philanthropy.

Two from BNA Money and Politics Report

BNA offers 2010 Battle Over Citizens United Ruling Still Unresolved as 2012 Campaign Looms and ABA Panel Recommendations Would Break Link Between Lobbying, Campaign Funding.

"Charities and Lobbying: Institutional Rights in the Wake of Citizens United"

Lloyd Mayer has posted this draft on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

One of the many aftershocks of the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Citizens United v. FEC is that the decision may raise constitutional questions for the long-standing limits on speech by charities. There has been much scholarly attention both before and after that decision on the limit for election-related speech by charities, but much less attention has been paid to the relating lobbying speech limit. This article seeks to close that gap by exploring that latter limit and its continued viability in the wake of Citizens United. I conclude that while Citizens United by itself does not undermine the limit on lobbying by charities, the decision does reinforce the constitutional requirement that the government allow charities to easily form a non-tax favored alternative for engaging in unlimited lobbying. Some post-Citizens United proposals for regulating speech-related activity may in fact run afoul of this requirement. More importantly, the intersection of Citizens United and this tax-based limit on charity speech may be a catalyst for renewed consideration of whether the unconstitutional conditions doctrine could be successfully refined in the subsidy context through an approach that considers the purpose of the subsidy and how important the speech-related limit is to the accomplishment of that purpose.