State of Elections

William & Mary Law School | Election Law Society

Election Law Society

New Mexico Supreme Court candidate disqualified

· ·

New Mexico Supreme Court Says Judicial Candidate was Properly Disqualified from Election and Fined for Violations of Public Campaign Financing Law

On April 12, 2012, the New Mexico Supreme Court found that candidate for a seat on the New Mexico Court of Appeals was properly disqualified from the election and fined. The case, Montoya v. Herrera concerned Dennis Montoya’s 2010 bid for a seat on the state appeals court. Judge Linda Vanzi was running to confirm the seat to which the governor had appointed her three years earlier and continue her job with the approval of voters. Montoya ran against her, and applied for public funding under the New Mexico Voter Action Act.

Then-secretary of state, Mary Herrera, “informed Appellant by letter that he was not qualified to receive public funding because he had violated the Act’s contribution limits and reporting requirements.” After a hearing, the action was upheld because Montoya was found to have exceeded the seed money limits of the New Mexico Voter Action Act and failed to comply with the secretary’s reporting requirements. Herrera imposed a $2,000 fine on Montoya for his violations.

Montoya appealed the disqualification and fine, which went straight to the highest court because he was running for a seat on the intermediate appellate court. The state supreme court considered whether he had violated the seed money regulations of the act, which impose a $5,000 limit on a candidate’s contributions to his own campaign. Montoya contributed over $8,000 to his own campaign, but argued they were for general expenses rather than seed money. The state high court rejected that argument, saying there is no such distinction in the wording of the law.

 

The New Mexico Supreme Court explained that, “when [Montoya] contributed more than $8,000 of his own money to the campaign, while simultaneously applying for public funds, he violated the Act.  Under the law, the Secretary had no choice but to disqualify him from public financing, and she did so.” It also dismissed Montoya’s First-Amendment claim because he choose to apply for public financing, when self-financing campaigns is allowed. This is a somewhat surprising outcome, as First Amendment claims have done well elsewhere.

The court upheld the fine as well, because the secretary of state was required by law to impose a civil penalty on anyone who violates the Act, regardless of his or her intent or knowledge of the violation.

New Mexico Supreme Court opinion

KOB local news

It was the www.buyresearchpapers.net/ last thing her hand had closed upon!

Election plans fail

· ·

by Timothy Huffstutter

At least one plan for selecting judges in Tennessee is now totally off the table. For my previous posts on the debate in the Tennessee General Assembly see here and here. Last week, the House Judiciary Committee voted 7-7 on Representative Glen Casada’s (R-Franklin) plan to elect judges and justices in contested elections. As a result of the tie vote, one vote shy of the majority needed to advance the bill, legislators now have only two proposals in front of them.

Casada was clearly displeased with the rejection of his proposal: “I’m disappointed to say the least.”  He went on to contend that “[t]he constitution governs how we do business and do public policy in the state. To be out of compliance is wrong. If you can’t comply with the most basic, how can you trust us to comply with other parts of the law as well?” Executive Director of the Tennessee Bar Association Allan Ramsaur was not convinced: “Let’s get away from this myth that what we have is not an elected system. We do elect judges, we just don’t have contests which lead to partisanship and big money influence.”

Now, Tennessee legislators are considering the two remaining plans in the rush before the legislative session ends at the end of April. Lieutenant Governor Ron Ramsey (R-Blountville) hopes that legislators will approve both plans and then come back in the next session to make a final decision. The first proposal amends the state constitution to explicitly provide for the current system—the so-called Tennessee Plan. The second proposal would mirror the federal judicial selection system (nomination by the executive with confirmation from the upper house of the legislature).

Legislators have to make a decision before the end of this legislative session. Should the Tennessee Senate approve both plans, then the new General Assembly, which will convene in January 2013, could pick up the stalemate. If the General Assembly fails to make any decision, then the debate will rage on into the next session.

For further coverage see the Knoxville News Sentinel and the Missouri News Horizon.

Timothy Huffstutter is a third-year student at William and Mary Law.

Permalink: http://stateofelections.pages.wm.edu/?p=4346

He was declared the father of barrys child http://www.pro-academic-writers.com and ordered to pay maintenance?

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Validates Iowa Judicial Nominating Commission’s Makeup

· ·

by Nick Mueller

On April 9, 2012 the Eighth Circuit dismissed a case brought by four Iowa voters challenging the constitutionality of the process for the selection of members of the State Judicial Nominating Commission, the commission that selects candidates for the Governor to nominate to the Iowa Supreme Court.  The issue in contention was that seven of the commission’s 15 members are required to be Iowa attorneys and that these attorneys are voted on not by the general public but by members of the Iowa bar.  The voters bringing the suit claimed that allowing only attorneys to vote, as opposed to the general public, violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment.

In deciding this case the court made a number of important legal findings.  It found that the commission served a “special and limited purpose” as opposed to performing “general governmental functions” such as taxing or issuing bonds.  It also found that, while the decisions of these members will affect all Iowans, they particularly affect attorneys in unique and amplified ways.  Having made these two findings they deem this election a “special interest election,” and under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, participation in such elections are reviewed with a lower level of scrutiny.  Instead of invoking the familiar “one person, one vote” standard, they ruled that as long as the selection process for commission members had a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest, then the process was constitutional. [Read more…] about U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Validates Iowa Judicial Nominating Commission’s Makeup

When judges take money: Campaign contributions in judicial elections

· ·

by Kevin Elliker

On March 29, 2012, the William & Mary Election Law Society and Election Law Program held a symposium entitled, “More Money, More Problems: Money in Judicial Elections” in Williamsburg, Virginia. The afternoon symposium featured two panels of distinguished speakers moderated by SCOTUSblog reporter Lyle Denniston.

The first panel focused on the financial issues surrounding judicial elections, specifically whether campaign contributions work differently in judicial elections than in legislative elections and if campaign donations result in some form of civic harm even when they do not reach the level of outright bribery. The panelists included: James Bopp, election mega-lawyer and litigator of Citizens United; Justice Thomas R. Phillips, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas; and former Federal Elections Commission Chairman Bradley Smith, who currently serves as Josiah H. Blackmore/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law at Capital University Law School and Chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, an organization he founded. [Read more…] about When judges take money: Campaign contributions in judicial elections