From: apfanning@psn.net ("Alan Fanning")
Subject: [lpaz-repost] Court Challenge to CA Primary Law
To: lpaz-repost@onelist.com ("lpaz-repost")
This might have some impact here. It sure shows how screwed-up the
courts are.
--Alan
People dream of making the virtuous powerful, so they can depend upon
them. Since they cannot do that, people choose to make the powerful
virtuous, glorifying in becoming victimized by them.
- Thomas Szasz
URL:
http://flash.oregonlive.com/cgi-bin/or_nview.pl?/home1/wire/AP/Stream-Pa
rsed/OREGON_NEWS/o1536_PM_WA--BlanketPrimary
States move to defend 'blanket' election primaries
The Associated Press
04/01/00 2:12 AM Eastern
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) -- The states of Washington and Alaska have waded
into a U.S. Supreme Court battle in hopes of protecting voters'
abilities to cast ballots for any candidate in primary elections,
regardless of party affiliation.
The nation's high court plans to hear arguments by four poitical
parties that California's voter-approved "blanket primary" law violates
their constitutional right of association.
Washington and Alaska have similar primary laws and filed a joint
friend-of-the-court brief Friday in support of California.
Washington and Alaska argued in their brief that primaries are a public
process, not a private activity, and that states have a compelling
interest in ensuring representative democracy through an election
process that is open to all qualified voters.
Before 1996, California allowed only voters who were members of a
political party to vote in that party's primary to nominate candidates
for the general election.
In March 1996, voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative that
let voters cast their ballots in primary elections for any candidate of
any party. For example, someone could vote to nominate a Republican
candidate for governor, a Democrat for senator and a Libertarian for
attorney general.
The state Democratic and Republican parties challenged the California
law, as did the state Libertarian Party and the Peace and Freedom Party.
They argued that letting nonparty members help choose their party's
nominees violated their rights to political association.
A federal judge ruled against them, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals agreed.
The justices will hear arguments in the case April 24. A decision is
expected by July.
The case is California Democratic Party vs. Jones, 99-401
LOW RATE, NO WAIT!
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! Get rates
as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees.
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/2122/0/_/651531/_/954617809/
Community email addresses:
Post message: lpaz-repost@onelist.com
Subscribe: lpaz-repost-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: lpaz-repost-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: lpaz-repost-owner@onelist.com
Web site: www.ArizonaLibertarian.org
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/lpaz-repost