Friday, October 19, 2018
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101625
https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2018/09/21/pennsylvanias-potential-gift-to-american-democracy/
the decision below was
Working Families Party v. Commonwealth, PICS Case No. 17-1547 (Pa. Commw. Sept. 18, 2017) Leavitt, P. J.(39 pages). 169 A.3d 1247 (2017)
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-commonwealth-court/1874233.html whch revewed
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/435MD16_9-30-16.pdf
https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/AppellateCourtReport.ashx?docketNumber=34+EAP+2017
September 25, 2018 Argued
pennsylvania supreme court to rule on fusion.
this case is important both on the merits,
and for state constitutional law.
the PA court rocked our world recently with an anti-gerrymandering decision based on the state constitution. add fusion, and PA politics gets way more interesting.
Working Families next argues that the anti-fusion provisions of the Election Code violate Article I, Sections 5, 7, and 20 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. These provisions provide for free and equal elections, freedom of speech, and freedom of association.
Further, where a party to litigation “mounts an individual rights challenge under the Pennsylvania Constitution, the party should undertake an independent analysis” to explain why “state constitutional doctrine should depart from the applicable federal standard.” Id. at 541.25 Working Families has not offered this explanation. Accordingly, we employ the analytical paradigm established in Timmons,
rookie mistake, which they better have fixed in the latest briefing, which i don't know if is online.
25. In Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1991), our Supreme Court held that when advocating a departure from the analogous federal standard in interpreting a state constitutional provision, the party should brief (1) the text of the Pennsylvania Constitution, (2) its history and Pennsylvania case law thereon, (3) case law from other jurisdictions and (4) policy considerations, including unique issues of state and local concern. Working Families has not done the Edmunds analysis.
By winning the race to file, a major party could “impersonate” a political body.
that sounds like a legitimate concern.
DISSENTING OPINION BY JUDGE COSGROVE
Reform Party v. Allegheny County Department of Elections, 174 F.3d 305 (3rd Cir. 1999)
This cannot withstand constitutional muster even under the most relaxed standard.
footnotes:
According to Working Families' exhibit, the Democratic/Republican designations occurred 100 times in these seven election cycles.
17. Working Families submits that since 2002, no political body or minor party candidates have successfully fused with a major party.
in 1997, i lost a fusion case at the 7th circuit, stewart v taylor.
i had an excellent lawyer, but he didn't understand or communicate my theory of the case, which was just to ask for a preliminary injunction pending the timmons decision, and he didn't pursue the state constitutional claims. we won the other half of the case, about disclaimers. this week the disclaimer part of my current federal lawsuit was dismissed on procedure, so i'll need to refile it as its own case.
Indiana allows a limited kind of fusion. A candidate
can be nominated by more than party, and then gets to choose which one to be listed on the ballot.
I have tried at times to run as both Republican and Libertarian, but both parties here are hostile to the idea. so right now my democratic state rep is unopposed. she's good, but i don't like the idea that the voters don't get a choice. most of marion county's races are unopposed. fusion could help change that.
i am currently working on recruiting a slate to run in all 3 parties in 2020, with 2019 for practice, not as fusion candidates, just regular style.
fusion in the usa is most used in new york,
where the right was found implicit in the state constitution long ago. the new york constitutional clause is unique and might not translate to PA, which has a more standard free and equal electons clause similar to indiana's.
i've been unable to convince the libertarian party to do the work to get ballot status in new york state and then use fusion to get people into congress.
in new york, fusion helped ronald reagan win over jimmy carter, and hillary was cross-nominate by the emocrats and the working families party, which is the old New Party that lost in timmons.
related https://nypost.com/2018/04/16/cuomos-revenge-on-the-working-families-party/
Don’t get us wrong: It’s beyond unseemly that taxpayer money goes to groups that aid a party that elects the politicians who decide where taxpayer money goes. But it stinks that this has only become an issue after the WFP crossed the gov.
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/12/17564576/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-joe-crowley-twitter-ballot-new-york
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/connecticut/articles/2018-08-26/governor-candidates-seeking-backing-of-independent-party
unrelated: janus fallout https://ijr.com/2018/10/1131746-public-unions-funding-nearly-a-quarter-of-pa-democrats-campaign-as-state-weighs-laws-challenging-their-power/
https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2018/09/21/pennsylvanias-potential-gift-to-american-democracy/
the decision below was
Working Families Party v. Commonwealth, PICS Case No. 17-1547 (Pa. Commw. Sept. 18, 2017) Leavitt, P. J.(39 pages). 169 A.3d 1247 (2017)
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-commonwealth-court/1874233.html whch revewed
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/435MD16_9-30-16.pdf
https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/AppellateCourtReport.ashx?docketNumber=34+EAP+2017
September 25, 2018 Argued
pennsylvania supreme court to rule on fusion.
this case is important both on the merits,
and for state constitutional law.
the PA court rocked our world recently with an anti-gerrymandering decision based on the state constitution. add fusion, and PA politics gets way more interesting.
Working Families next argues that the anti-fusion provisions of the Election Code violate Article I, Sections 5, 7, and 20 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. These provisions provide for free and equal elections, freedom of speech, and freedom of association.
The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.
PA. CONST. art. I, § 7. Article I, Section 20 guarantees the right to associate. It reads:
The citizens have a right in a peaceable manner to assemble together for their common good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance. PA. CONST. art. I, § 20.
The Pennsylvania Constitution affords greater protection of speech and associational rights than does our Federal Constitution. See DePaul v. Commonwealth, 969 A.2d 536, 546 (Pa. 2009) (noting, inter alia, that Article I, Section 7 is the “ancestor, not a stepchild, of the First Amendment”).Further, where a party to litigation “mounts an individual rights challenge under the Pennsylvania Constitution, the party should undertake an independent analysis” to explain why “state constitutional doctrine should depart from the applicable federal standard.” Id. at 541.25 Working Families has not offered this explanation. Accordingly, we employ the analytical paradigm established in Timmons,
rookie mistake, which they better have fixed in the latest briefing, which i don't know if is online.
25. In Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1991), our Supreme Court held that when advocating a departure from the analogous federal standard in interpreting a state constitutional provision, the party should brief (1) the text of the Pennsylvania Constitution, (2) its history and Pennsylvania case law thereon, (3) case law from other jurisdictions and (4) policy considerations, including unique issues of state and local concern. Working Families has not done the Edmunds analysis.
By winning the race to file, a major party could “impersonate” a political body.
that sounds like a legitimate concern.
[E]lections are free and equal within the meaning of the Constitution when they are public and open to all qualified electors alike; when every voter has the same right as any other voter; when each voter under the law has the right to cast his ballot and have it honestly counted; when the regulation of the right to exercise the franchise does not deny the franchise itself[;] and when no constitutional right of the qualified elector is subverted or denied him.
Shankey v. Staisey, 257 A.2d 897, 899 (Pa. 1969) (quoting Winston v. Moore, 91 A. 520, 523 (Pa. 1914)).
Indiana uses the same test.DISSENTING OPINION BY JUDGE COSGROVE
Reform Party v. Allegheny County Department of Elections, 174 F.3d 305 (3rd Cir. 1999)
This cannot withstand constitutional muster even under the most relaxed standard.
footnotes:
According to Working Families' exhibit, the Democratic/Republican designations occurred 100 times in these seven election cycles.
17. Working Families submits that since 2002, no political body or minor party candidates have successfully fused with a major party.
in 1997, i lost a fusion case at the 7th circuit, stewart v taylor.
i had an excellent lawyer, but he didn't understand or communicate my theory of the case, which was just to ask for a preliminary injunction pending the timmons decision, and he didn't pursue the state constitutional claims. we won the other half of the case, about disclaimers. this week the disclaimer part of my current federal lawsuit was dismissed on procedure, so i'll need to refile it as its own case.
Indiana allows a limited kind of fusion. A candidate
can be nominated by more than party, and then gets to choose which one to be listed on the ballot.
I have tried at times to run as both Republican and Libertarian, but both parties here are hostile to the idea. so right now my democratic state rep is unopposed. she's good, but i don't like the idea that the voters don't get a choice. most of marion county's races are unopposed. fusion could help change that.
i am currently working on recruiting a slate to run in all 3 parties in 2020, with 2019 for practice, not as fusion candidates, just regular style.
fusion in the usa is most used in new york,
where the right was found implicit in the state constitution long ago. the new york constitutional clause is unique and might not translate to PA, which has a more standard free and equal electons clause similar to indiana's.
i've been unable to convince the libertarian party to do the work to get ballot status in new york state and then use fusion to get people into congress.
in new york, fusion helped ronald reagan win over jimmy carter, and hillary was cross-nominate by the emocrats and the working families party, which is the old New Party that lost in timmons.
related https://nypost.com/2018/04/16/cuomos-revenge-on-the-working-families-party/
Don’t get us wrong: It’s beyond unseemly that taxpayer money goes to groups that aid a party that elects the politicians who decide where taxpayer money goes. But it stinks that this has only become an issue after the WFP crossed the gov.
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/12/17564576/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-joe-crowley-twitter-ballot-new-york
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/connecticut/articles/2018-08-26/governor-candidates-seeking-backing-of-independent-party
unrelated: janus fallout https://ijr.com/2018/10/1131746-public-unions-funding-nearly-a-quarter-of-pa-democrats-campaign-as-state-weighs-laws-challenging-their-power/
Comments:
Post a Comment
