{news} Some Legal Arguments Against Discriminatory Legislation Found In The CT Campaign Finance Law That Adversely Impact Third Parties

[smderosa]

Some Legal Arguments Against Discriminatory Legislation Found In The CT
Campaign Finance Law That Adversely Impact Third Parties
 
We view certain parts of the recent CT campaign finance law as being
discriminatory against the  Green Party of CT and others.
 
We feel that sections of the new CT campaign finance law(those that force us
to collect 20% of the signatures of voters in a district in order to qualify
for full matching funds, while NOT requiring the major parties to fulfill
this requirement) give unconstitutional favor to incumbents and give unfair
advantage to Democratic and Republican backed candidates.  It is no secret
that in many cities in CT the primary election of one major party or more
likely the  nomination meetings of one of the two major parties are where
candidates are elected to our legislature and to other elected positions.
Since no other clean election fund in the US requires a discriminatory
signature requirement  for third parties it is hard to understand what the
CT legislature was thinking when they attached this to this legislation.
  
The ability of our candidates to petition their way on to the ballot (1% to
2% requirement on a state mandated and controlled petition), get the
nomination of our party, and collect a large number of small donations
should be sufficient to allow us legitimate access to  CT clean election
fund matching funds.  The discriminatory addition of collecting an
additional 10% for partial funding and 20% for full funding is
unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment  and 14th Amendment rights
of insurgent third party candidates.  Furthermore, forcing non-major party
candidates to solicit discriminatory public support in the form of
signatures before participation in the clean election fund is tantamount to
a state imposed "public support" qualification that violates the
constitutional Qualifications Clause.  Also, because of the historical
record in CT (Weicker's third party election to Governor in 1990) the US
Supreme Court's decision under Buckley vs. Valeo that "the government can
discriminate when it awards public funds to presidential nominees" does not
apply. Also under Greenberg vs. Bolger, (497 F. Supp. 756, 1980) a U.S.
District Court ruled unconstitutional a law that gave cheaper postal rates
to political parties that had polled 25% for president in the last election.
Another case is Socialist Workers Party vs. Rockefeller(314 F. Supp. 984,
1970) that ruled that if the government gives a free list of the registered
voters to qualified parties, it must give it to the unqualified parties as
well.  The U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed this decision.  Also
helpful are decisions from New York, New Jersey, Colorado, and Oklahoma,
that say if voters are permitted to register as members of qualified
parties, they must be allowed to register as members of unqualified parties.

 
For over 50 years CT's discriminatory laws have kept third party candidates
off the ballot thereby reducing their ability to form effective free
associations and making it difficult to find one another.  We have developed
here in CT a set of laws that creates two tiers for political parties (i.e.
major parties and minor parties).  While all  political parties in CT are
equal, some political parties are more equal than others.  The recent
provisions of this law only further delineate in an unconstitutional way
this unequal status for entry and participation in the electoral process.
The sections of the law in question may make this new law the "No CT
incumbent left behind law of 2005".  
 
While we will try to "reform" aspects of the law in the upcoming session of
the CT General Assembly, we are keenly aware that the legislators are
unlikely to vote to change something that allows them to essentially silence
those who compete against them on the ballot.  It is critical that a
credible judicial challenge be in place in order to encourage the CT
legislature to allow third parties equal treatment under the law. 
 

 
  

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.15/223 - Release Date: 1/6/2006
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20060108/c8063c5e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: roots[1].jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 73367 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20060108/c8063c5e/attachment.jpg>