|
Sep 19, 2008 -- Legal Center Weekly Report: September 19, 2008 Defendants Oppose Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Motion in CT Public Finance Case
On September 5, 2008, the State of Connecticut and intervening-defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in the consolidated cases, Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield and Association of CT Lobbyists v. Garfield. Plaintiffs are challenging Connecticut's recently-enacted public financing program on multiple grounds, including claims that the program's eligibility and qualification requirements discriminate against minor parties in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on this claim on July 10, 2008. Defendants' brief opposing this motion argues that the statutory eligibility requirements are reasonable, and any failure on the part of plaintiffs to meet these requirements are due to minor parties' low popularity and poor organization, not to any invidious discrimination.
On September 5, 2008, the State and intervening-defendants also filed their opposition to plaintiffs' motion to reconsider the court's decision of March 20, 2008 to dismiss plaintiffs' First Amendment challenge to the public financing program's "trigger provisions." These provisions provide additional public funds to participating candidates when the expenditures of non-participating candidates or independent spenders exceed established trigger points. Plaintiffs argued that the court should reconsider its dismissal in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Davis v. FEC to strike down the Millionaire's Amendment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. In their brief opposing plaintiffs' motion, defendants and intervening-defendants argued that the Davis decision was not applicable because it did not consider a public financing program, and further, that the First Amendment burdens and state interests implicated by the Millionaire's Amendment were not at issue in the Connecticut case.
The Legal Center serves as co-counsel for the intervening defendants, Connecticut Citizen Action Group and Common Cause of Connecticut, and candidates for state office, with the Brennan Center, Democracy 21, Donald J. Simon of Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, and the law firms, WilmerHale and Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.
Virginia County Becomes Fifteenth Jurisdiction to Obtain Voting Rights Act Bailout
On September 16, 2008, a three-judge federal court in Washington, DC approved a consent judgment and decree in Page County , Virginia , v. Mukasey , exempting the county from its obligations to submit all proposed voting changes for preclearance approval to the Department of Justice (DOJ) or to the DC court. CLC's Executive Director Gerry Hebert served as legal counsel for Page County in the matter.
District Court Refuses to Enjoin Ohio's "Electioneering Communications" Disclosure Law
On September 5, 2008, the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Ohio granted in part, and denied in part plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction in Ohio Right to Life v. Ohio Election Commission . Plaintiff Ohio Right to Life (ORTL) had requested that the district court enjoin enforcement of multiple provisions of Ohio's state campaign finance law governing "electioneering communications," including the law's electioneering communications disclosure requirements. ORTL argued that the Supreme Court's decision in Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) v. FEC rendered the state electioneering communication disclosure provisions unconstitutional as applied to any communication which did not meet WRTL 's definition for express advocacy or its functional equivalent.
The district court rejected this argument and denied plaintiff's request to enjoin Ohio's electioneering communications disclosure requirements. The Court noted that the Supreme Court had upheld BCRA's "electioneering communications" disclosure requirements in McConnell v. FEC , and ruled that this precedent governed its review of the Ohio disclosure provisions. The district court also rejected plaintiff's contention that the Supreme Court's recent holding in Davis v. FEC provided a basis for overturning McConnell on this point.
On July 18, 2008, the Legal Center filed an amici brief on behalf of itself and Ohio Citizen Action to defend the constitutionality of Ohio's electioneering communications disclosure requirements.
Policy Director Joins Distinguished Online Debate Panel
Campaign Legal Center Policy Director Meredith McGehee has accepted an invitation to join The Arena, "Politico's daily debate with policy makers and opinion shapers." The online discussion is moderated by longtime Washington Post reporter and editor Fred Barbash who introduces a daily question to the "Arena Players." McGehee joins a group of panelists that includes House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), Former Senate majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS), House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), Grover Norquist, Gary Bauer, James Carville, Mark Penn, and Legal Center Board Member Norman Ornstein, among others.
Legal Center Urges Support for Redistricting Resolution
Campaign Legal Center Policy Director Meredith McGehee, urged House Members to support H. Res. 1365 supporting the use of independent commissions in redistricting. The letter asked Members to cosponsor the legislation introduced by Rep. John Tanner (D-TN). The Legal Center also compiled and distributed statements by presidential candidates, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) stressing their recognition of both the problems with the current redistricting system and the urgent need to reform the redistricting process.
Legal Center Blog Highlights
Each week, the Campaign Legal Center staff posts blog entries on its site, www.clcblog.org. To read the entries or to sign up for the blog, click here.
Week in the News
To read a variety of this week's editorials and articles on a variety of Campaign Legal Center issues, please click here. |
