I always had a problem with judge rulings that seem to ignore the common sense reasoning of a law. This has led to the idea that maybe it is time we do away with lifetime appointments and set an age limit.
A have a subscription to Ballot Access News, the Richard Winger blog. In the April Newsletter, there is a case that explains my frustration with judges and the law. The case, as Richard calls it, is "Colorado Discriminatory Campaign Law Upheld".
But first, a story about some independent friends that are part of the story.
Joelle Riddle (top left), a County Commissioner in La Plata, Colorado, decided that she could serve her constituents most effectively as an independent. So the former Democrat changed her registration, only to find she couldn't run again as an independent because state law requires that would-be candidates who re-register must have done so 18 months in advance of the election. Riddle filed a lawsuit challenging the law. She also turned to State Representative Kathleen Curry (top right), then Speaker Pro Tem of the House, asking her to sponsor legislation that would level the playing field. Curry re-registered as an indy too! They formed Independent Voters for Colorado, and launched a petition drive calling for non-partisan open primaries (Top Two).
On February 27, U.S. District Court Judge Philip A. Brimmer upheld Colorado's campaign finance law that says individuals may contribute $400 to a legislature candidate who is nominated by a primary, but only $200 to an individual who is nominated by petition or convention, or who is a write-in candidate. The case is Riddle v Hickenlooper (10-cv-1857). The lead plaintiff, Joelle Riddle, wanted to contribute $400 to Kathleen Curry, who was a write-in candidate in the general election.
As Richard states: Because Democrats and Republicans always run in primaries in Colorado, whereas minor party members almost always are nominated in conventions, the law in effect discriminates in favor of Republicans and Democratic candidates and against all others.
The ruling says the law does not violate Equal Protection because a candidate who runs in a primary must compete in two elections, the partisan primary and the general.
One can argue that a minor party, independent, or a write-in candidate needs more contributions to compete against the major party member. Riddle used the fact that it takes a bigger campaign to elect a write-in candidate who must defeat opponents who are listed on the ballot to challenge the law.
Judge Brimmer's decision seems to contradict the U.S. Supreme Court decision Davis v Federal Election Commission (554 U.S. 724 2008). It said government can't tinker with campaign contributions limits just to help certain kind of candidates. The Davis decision seems to say that contributions limits must be the same for all candidates in the same race.
Judge Brimmer's opinion acknowledges the Davis decision but says it isn't relevant.
The Plaintiffs will appeal.
What do you think of judges ignoring other decisions?
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!
Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us 
Thanks for covering this, Mike.
ReplyDelete