MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Decl. at 10-11; Rapoport Decl. at 24-25. Second, they must run actual campaignsin the pre-primary primaries in their attempt to secure delegates. See Caplan Decl. at 13-14; Campbell Decl. at 11. Third, if they’ve been successful, they are finally able torun in the primary. Finally, if successful after three campaigns, they would be able to runin the general election. This is a grueling and expensive process. It chews up theresources of the few candidates who are actually able to mount such a challenge. SeeRapoport Decl. at 26; Nielsen Decl. at 11; Caplan Decl. at 16. Yet, in single-towndistricts and every other state in the nation, candidates must run only two campaigns: theprimary and, if victorious, the general election.B. The Statistics Demonstrate the Severe Burden Imposed on Voters andCandidates in Multi-Town Districts.Forty-seven years of electoral experience illustrate the severe burdens thatConnecticut’s dual system imposes on voters in multi-town and statewide districts.1. Statewide and Congressional RacesSince 1955, when the dual system was enacted, not a single incumbentcongressman seeking re-election from one of Connecticut’s six U.S. House districts faceda primary challenge. In these 47 years, there were primaries for open seats and theoccasional primary in the party seeking to challenge the incumbent in the generalelection. See McLoughlin Decl. at Exhibit A. But of the123 times an incumbentRepresentative sought re-election in Connecticut, not one faced a primary challenge. Id.By comparison, in 2000 alone, 68 of the 403 incumbent representatives seeking reelection(or 17%) across the nation faced primary challenges; in 1998, 19% of theincumbents faced a primary challenge. See Holman Decl. at Exhibit A.14
Similarly, since 1955, no incumbent U.S. Senator from Connecticut has faced aprimary challenge, nor has any incumbent secretary of the state. 8See McLouglin Decl. atExhibit A. Again, by way of comparison, in 2000, 34% of the incumbent U.S. Senatorsseeking re-election nationwide faced a primary challenge; in 1998, 41% of theincumbents faced a primary challenge. Only one incumbent governor – out of the sixwho have sought reelection since 1955 – faced a primary challenge. Id.2. A Comparison of Primary Races in Multi-town and Single-TownDistrictsNo statistic may better illustrate the burden of primary ballot access inConnecticut’s multi-town districts than a comparison of the number of primaries in theState’s multi-town and single-town state House districts.Research from 20 years of election data (from 1980-2000) demonstrates that thenumber of primaries in Connecticut’s single-town districts greatly exceeds the number inmulti-town races. Nearly 19% of the total races in single-town districts have had aprimary compared with only 7.6% of the races in multi-town districts. See McLoughlinDecl. at Exhibit C.But more tellingly, in races where an incumbent sought re-election, the singletowndistricts had nine times as many primaries as the multi-town districts. Since 1980,incumbents seeking re-election in single-town state House districts faced a primarychallenge in 11.5% of the races. Id. In multi-town districts, on the other hand, theincumbent faced a primary challenge in only 1.3% of the races. Id. Only nine incumbents8 In 1970, incumbent Senator Thomas J. Dodd, a Democrat, sought re-election as anindependent candidate. He was not among the several candidates on the Democraticprimary ballot.15
Page 1 and 2: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRIC
Page 3 and 4: II.PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDMENT AN
Page 5 and 6: Plaintiffs respectfully submit this
Page 7 and 8: five states permit the major partie
Page 9 and 10: STATEMENT OF FACTSA. Connecticut’
Page 11 and 12: least 15% of their convention’s d
Page 13 and 14: Because the committee members, part
Page 15: against the town’s slate for the
Page 20 and 21: in multi-town districts, out of a t
Page 22: for delegate slates, is more burden
Page 25 and 26: Because plaintiffs can show that th
Page 27 and 28: not be harmed by this new rule. Obv
Page 29 and 30: magnitude of the asserted injury to
Page 31 and 32: a. The burdens are severe when comp
Page 33 and 34: Mortham, 155 F.3d 1332, 1337 (11 th
Page 35 and 36: [C]ould a reasonably diligent indep
Page 37 and 38: town line. This demonstrates that C
Page 39 and 40: Similarly, the burdens imposed on c
Page 41 and 42: B. Because Connecticut’s Dual Sys
Page 43 and 44: candidate named in the petition. Id

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?