{news} FW: A Victory for CT Green Party's Campaign Finance Lawsuit- Not Final- But Very Very Interesting!

[Mike DeRosa]

Dear Fellow Greens:

 

Federal Judge Underhill has denied the defendants' in this case (the state
of CT etc) summary judgment on most of our challenge to the No Democrat or
Republican Left Behind Law (CT campaign finance law). This means that the
judge is saying that our case has merit and then it can go forward to trial.
If you take the time to read the document you will see that the judge (in my
opinion) is making comments that are quite helpful to our case. What the
final outcome will be is of course still up in the air.  Find below Richard
Winger's (Editor of Ballot Access News) take on this decision below. I agree
with everything he is saying.  I believe that we are close to victory but we
will just have to wait and see. It's not over till it's over.

 

Sincerely,

Mike DeRosa

 

 



 <http://www.ballot-access.org> 


 

 

 



Connecticut
<http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/03/21/connecticut-ruling-although-not-fin
al-is-very-helpful/>  Ruling, Although Not Final, Is Very Helpful 


March 21st, 2008 

As noted in a blog post below, on March 20, a U.S. District Court in
Connecticut said that the lawsuit Green Party of Connecticut v Garfield must
go to trial. However, the March 20 order is not just a simple procedural
matter; it is a 49-page careful analysis of whether states can substantially
discriminate against non-Democrats and non-Republicans, in the matter of
public funding. Here <http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/Opinion-MTD.pdf>  is
the decision. The substantive parts start on page 29.

Noteworthy quotes are, "The Connecticut General Assembly had no obligation
to pass a law that levels the playing field, but the legislature is not free
to pass a law that further slants the playing field." Also, "The size of the
10%-15%-20% (petition) thresholds is not as problematic as the fact that
thresholds (i.e., petitions) apply only to minor party candidates in the
first instance. Plaintiffs argue that it is unfair to impose additional
qualifying requirements only on minor party candidates because, in
one-party-dominant districts, the minor party candidate's chances to win the
general election as are good as, or better than, the token (or nonexistent)
major party candidate, yet the token major party candidate is presumptively
entitled to the full complement of public funds, whereas the minor party
candidate must show additional 'modicums of support.' That argument is
persuasive. Indeed, in those districts, major party candidates have proven
to be just as capable of running hopeless candidacies, or no candidacies at
all, as minor party candidates. Defendants have suggested no good reason why
the legislature sought to protect the public fisc from hopeless minor party
candidacies, on the one hand, while spending significant sums of money on
hopeless major party candidacies, on the other."


One Response to "Connecticut Ruling, Although Not Final, Is Very Helpful"


1.	David Gaines <http://www.myspace.com/composerdude>  Says: 
March 22nd, 2008 at 2:53 pm
<http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/03/21/connecticut-ruling-although-not-fin
al-is-very-helpful/#comment-296686#comment-296686>  

Very interesting indeed. I've brought up this point to people numerous times
when they use the tired old wasted vote argument. Strangely, for people who
are obsessed with only voting for candidates who have a chance of winning,
it's not a waste to vote for candidates like George McGovern '72 or Walter
Mondale '84, neither of whom had a prayer of winning most states' electoral
votes, let alone the whole election. This is because they were major party
nominees, and the psychology, bizarre though it may be, slants in their
favor. In terms of the nuts and bolts of "wasting your vote on someone who
isn't going to win," however, because of the current winner-take-all nature
of electoral votes, McGovern/Mondale-type major party candidates have no
more chance of winning the presidency than any given 3rd party candidate
does, so there was no "additional waste" in voting for, say, Benjamin Spock
in '72 or Sonia Johnson in '84.

A fine piece of reasoning by this court.

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20080322/be422d58/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 10561 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20080322/be422d58/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Opinion on MTD.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 279604 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20080322/be422d58/attachment.obj>