CHICAGO – Fresh decisions in cases from Alaska and Maine and an Illinois decision from 2000 cast doubt on Illinois law against residents of other states contributing to judicial campaigns.
The decisions support a First Amendment claim that John Chancey of Texas filed in U.S. district court at Chicago on Aug. 3.
Chancey, represented by attorneys from the Liberty Justice Center, wants to contribute to current judicial campaigns of individuals he knew when he practiced law in Illinois.
The clerk assigned District Judge John Tharp.
Legislators enacted the ban last year, applying it only to the judiciary branch.
In the Alaska case, legislators decided no candidate could receive more than $3,000 from other states.
Plaintiff David Thompson stated he wanted to contribute $100 to his brother-in-law, who had already received $3,000 from other states.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Burgess upheld the limit, finding it served a purpose against corruption.
Ninth Circuit appellate judges reversed him, finding they couldn’t agree that the limit targeted quid pro quo corruption or its appearance.
“At most, the law aimed to curb perceived undue influence of out of state contributors,” Circuit Judge Consuelo Callahan wrote.
She found that wasn’t sufficient in light of Supreme Court decisions against Federal Election Commission in the cases of Citizens United and McCutcheon.
“Moreover, even if the panel agreed with Alaska that limiting the inflow of contributions from out of state extractive industries served an anti-corruption interest, the nonresident aggregate limit was a poor fit,” she wrote.
“Indeed, Alaska’s argument that the nonresident limit reduces the appearance that a candidate will be obligated to outside interests rather than constituents says nothing about corruption.
“Alaska fails to show why an out of state individual’s early contribution is not corrupting, whereas an individual’s later contribution, made after the candidate has already amassed $3,000 in out of state funds, is corrupting.
“Alaska fails to demonstrate that the risk of quid pro quo corruption turns on a donor’s particular geography.”
The case from Maine didn’t involve out of state contributions, but rather involved a law requiring voter registration in Maine for persons circulating petitions.
District Judge John Woodcock granted an injunction to We the People last year, finding the restriction wasn’t narrowly tailored to the interest.
“Simply because a circulator is a Maine resident does not mean they will be less likely to commit fraud or more amenable to service in Maine,” Woodcock wrote.
“This is especially true with out of state professional circulators who have an incentive to maintain their professional reputations and get paid for their valid signatures.”
He found Maine is part of the Union and its laws must comport with the First Amendment as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.
First Circuit appellate judges affirmed him this July, finding no basis to assume circulators who weren’t registered in Maine would be less likely to abide by oaths.
They cited Krislov v. Rednour, a landmark case from Illinois.
Krislov sued the state election board in 1996, challenging requirements for registration and residence in the district where the candidate would run.
District Judge Elaine Bucklo of Chicago certified a class action and in 1999, she granted summary judgment to Krislov.
The election board appealed and Seventh Circuit judges affirmed Bucklo in 2000.
Circuit Judge Daniel Manion wrote that her correct focus was “the number of people the registration and residency requirements exclude from gathering signatures and thus disseminating the candidates’ political message.”
Manion found Illinois placed a formidable burden on candidates by preventing them from employing millions of potential advocates.
“By contrast, candidates with the full support of established parties might easily afford to have non voting citizens excluded from the much larger pool of potential petition circulators,” he wrote.
“For some minor candidates, parting with one or two avid circulators could significantly impact their campaigns.
“Laws which could prevent viable candidates from being elected are at odds with the very foundation of our representative democracy.
“Allowing citizens of the other 49 states to circulate petitions increases the opportunity for the free flow of political ideas.”