Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Experts: Tax changes need to be fair, earn public trust

24 June 2014

By Barb Berggoetz

"About 200 tax experts invited to Pence's conference opined about how Indiana should create a simpler and fairer tax structure that will spur growth. . . .

John Strinka, chairman, Greater Indianapolis Socialist Party-USA: 'What we need is a progressive tax structure. They (speakers) are peddling the same old snake oil that they've been peddling for the last 30 years that we've seen manifestly does not work....'"

Read More

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

U.S. District Court Judge Invites Michigan Secretary of State to Respond to Socialist Party’s Request for Reconsideration

11 June 2014

By Richard Winger
Ballot Access News

"On June 9, U.S. District Court Judge Stephen J. Murphy ordered that the Michigan Secretary of State is permitted to respond to the request for reconsideration in Erard v Michigan Secretary of State, eastern district, 12-cv-13627. Most of the time, when plaintiffs lose and then ask for reconsideration, the court denies reconsideration without even asking the other side to respond. But in this case, the request for reconsideration is weighty enough that the Judge wants to hear from the Secretary of State...."

Read More

Sunday, June 1, 2014

Michigan Loss

1 June 2014

By Richard Winger
Ballot Access News

"On May 14, U.S. District Court Judge Stephen J. Murphy, a Bush, Jr. appointee, upheld Michigan’s ballot access laws for newly-qualifying parties, in a challenge filed by a Socialist Party candidate. Erard v Secretary of State, e.d., 2:12cv-13627.

Michigan requires newly-qualifying parties to submit 32,261 valid signatures this year, yet a party that polled at least 16,083 votes in November 201 automatically remains on the ballot. The lawsuit argues that Michigan is discriminating against new parties relative to old ones. In support of the contention that this is unconstitutional, Erard mentioned the U.S. Supreme Court decision Williams v Rhodes, which struck down Ohio’s laws in 1968 partly because new parties needed a 15% petition, but old parties could stay on with a 10% vote. Erard also cited Baird v Davorem, a 1972 Massachusetts case that said it was unconstitutional for Massachusetts to require a 3% petition to get on, when the vote test to remain on was only one-tenth of 1%.

The judge said because every party in Michigan had to petition to get on originally, there is no Equal Protection violation. The statement that every party in Michigan had to petition to get on the ballot is factually wrong. No party in Michigan was required to petition until the law was changed in 1939, so the Democratic and Republican Parties never needed a petition. Erard had included this information in his brief, but the Judge apparently overlooked it. Erard will ask for reconsideration."

Read More