Author: Alan

The Supreme Court Rejects Theory That Political Parties Are an Independent Source of Electors in Elections Case

The Supreme Court Rejects Theory That Political Parties Are an Independent Source of Electors in Elections Case

Democratic Senators Ask Supreme Court to Reject Theory in Elections Case

D.C. Circuit Rejecting Theory That Political Parties Are an Independent Source of Electors in Elections Case

The Supreme Court hears oral arguments on a case involving the influence of political parties in federal elections.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on January 12, 2014, in Hollingsworth v. Perry, to decide whether a party qualifies for the privilege that protects from compelled disclosure political communication by parties in federal elections. The decision will give the US government increased power to compel the identity of political donors and contributors. The US Government argues that this power is justified because of its “substantial interest in protecting the integrity of elections.” The plaintiffs argue that this power violates the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and association. The case also concerns the ability of the states and political parties to exclude independent voters from the electoral process.

In October 2013, the Supreme Court held that corporations in their capacity as individuals can be compelled to provide their books and records to the state.

In October 2013, the Supreme Court held that corporations in their capacity as individuals can be compelled to provide their books and records to the state.

In this decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned part of a court decision by a district court judge in New York that enjoined the state’s compelled disclosure of records of political candidates. The decision by a panel of the Second Circuit followed a challenge by Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), in which the Supreme Court held that corporations have free speech rights under the First Amendment.

In order to understand the issues in this case, it is necessary to briefly summarize the legal framework upon which the court’s decision rests.

The First Amendment provides that there are “freedom of speech, press, and religion.” However, in 2008, the House of Representatives passed a law that amended the Electoral Act of

Leave a Comment