Federal Judiciary

Maine defends campaign law

By Lyle Denniston

The state of Maine on Thursday, noting that its elections are less than two weeks away, on Thursday urged the Supreme Court not to block state election laws that have been operating for months and only lately have been challenged.  Asked by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy for the state’s views — in a case in which Justice Stephen G. Breyer already rejected a challenge, Maine officials said that the challengers have not suffered in any way from the laws they are now protesting.

The laws at issue in Respect Maine PAC, et al., v. McKee (application for injunction 10A362) provide a subsidy of public “matching funds” to candidates joining in a “clean elections” program if a candidate outside that program outdoes them in fund raising, requires public disclosure of spending by independent political committees, and sets a $750 limit on individual donations to statewide candidates, including those running for governor.

The matching funds provision was challenged by an incumbent state legislator seeking reelection but without a subsidy, the disclosure requirement by the Respect Maine PAC, and the donation limit by an individual who is supporting a candidate for governor.  In seeking a Supreme Court injunction against continued enforcement of those provisions, each of the challengers contended that the laws put a crimp in their ability to speak out during the critical closing weeks of the election campaign.

The state of Maine, in its response, examined the claims one by one and argued that, in each case, the laws have not actually inhibited the legislator, the PAC, or the contributor from pursuing their campaign efforts.

The challengers, after being turned down a week ago by Justice Breyer (who had not even asked the state for a response), re-filed their plea with Justice Kennedy.  They drew some hope from the fact that Kennedy then sought a response from the state, due Thursday.   Now that the response is in, Kennedy could go ahead and act on his own, or refer it to the full Court.

In recent years, it has been common, if a case is pursued with more than one Justice in succession, for a succeeding Justice to take the matter to the full Court, to provide a definitive result without further individual consideration.  Whether to do so is up to the individual Justice with whom an application has been filed.

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on October 21, 2010 (boomark / email).