representation and electoral systems - American Political Science ...

12
since the Washington election system does not involve nomination by political parties,
therefore the parties can not complain that they have lost the right to control their own
nominations process. In effect, there is no longer a party nominations process in
Washington state (except for presidential electors and delegates to presidential
conventions). By contrast, the lower courts had ruled that since the system does place
party labels on ballots, therefore the system suggests that parties do nominate candidates,
and therefore party associational rights are still implicated. The Washington Republican
Party has already filed an amended complaint against the “top-two” system, to transform
its original lawsuit into an “as applied” lawsuit, so it is clear that litigation over the
Washington system will continue for some time.
Other Areas of Election Law Litigation
On January 9, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case
involving whether states may require voters at the polls to show government photo
identification in order to vote at the polls. No decision has been released in Crawford v
Marion County Election Board. For the most part, state legislatures are not enacting new
laws on this subject, and new lawsuits are not being filed on this subject while the nation
awaits the decision.
The only ballot access decision of note during the October 2007-March 2008
period was from the 6 th circuit which, Citizens for Tax Reform v Deters, struck down an
Ohio law that made it illegal for initiative proponents to pay circulators on a per-signature
basis.The court noted that initiative proponents had presented credible evidence that the
law would cost them an additional $300,000. The evidence showed that petitioners who
are paid per signature are more productive than petitioners who are paid by the hour.
Minor parties won four lawsuits against discriminatory state laws that relate to
campaign assistance from governments, during the last six months. In New Hampshire
and Michigan, minor parties won rulings striking down laws providing the government
should give a free list of the voters to the major parties, but not other parties. In New
Hampshire, the case was in state court and is called Libertarian Party of New Hampshire
v Gardner. In Michigan, the case was in federal court and is called Green Party of
Michigan v Land.
In Connecticut, a U.S. District Court issued a 49-page ruling on March 20, 2008,
suggesting that the Connecticut public funding law, enacted in 2005, is apt to be held
unconstitutional. The case is Green Party of Connecticut v Garfield. The Court denied
the state’s motion for summary judgment, and said a trial will be held to establish if the
law is constitutional. The law provides that all candidates for state office who want
public funding must raise small contributions from many contributors. The amount of
contributors is the same for all candidates. However, if the candidate is not a member of
a party that polled 20 percent for Governor at the last election, and if the candidate wants
the full amount of public funding, he or she must submit a petition signed by 20 percent
of the last vote cast for that office.
Connecticut argued that it is constitutional to make public funding more difficult
for people who are not Democrats and Republicans because the U.S. Supreme Court in
1976 had upheld a federal law that gives general election public funding to political
parties’ presidential campaign committees if that party polled 5 percent in the last
presidential election. New parties and independent candidates who were not eligible for