Skip to content
Sign up free
News

Oral Argument Granted for Lawsuit Against Debate Commission

By Independent Voter Project

2-minute read

The U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. will hear oral arguments in a lawsuit challenging the FEC for not properly regulating the Commission on Presidential Debates. The court set a hearing date for Thursday, January 5, 2017, just under two weeks before the next president will be sworn into office.

Level the Playing Field and its CEO, Peter Ackerman, originally filed the lawsuit in June 2015. The suit charges that the CPD and its directors have violated federal election law that requires debate sponsors to be "nonpartisan" and use "objective criteria" to determine which candidates will appear on the presidential debate stage.

"We are grateful that the Court has granted our request for oral arguments and look forward to a hearing in January," said Alexandra A.E. Shapiro, lead counsel to the plaintiffs.

LPF cites extensive evidence showing that the CPD is not nonpartisan and instead promotes the candidates of the Democratic and Republican parties while excluding all others from the debates. Currently, the debate commission's criteria for debate entry says candidates must (1) be qualified to run for president, (2) be ballot qualified in enough states to have a mathematical chance at winning an electoral majority, and (3) poll at 15 percent in 5 polls hand-picked by the CPD.

Plaintiffs assert that the latter criterion is one that only the Democratic and Republican parties can reasonably achieve, and thus the commission illegally excludes third-party and independent candidates from the debates. The debate commission is run by former top officials of the two major parties, including a former chairman of the national Republican Party.

"The CPD is a partisan organization designed to ensure that every four years no candidate unaligned with either major party can compete for the presidency, and if you can't get into the debates, you can't win. This is reason that great Americans will not run for president as Independents, to the detriment of all Americans," co-plaintiff Peter Ackerman told IVN.

WATCH: It’s Time to End Two-Party Duopoly over Presidential Debates

Other organizations have filed amicus briefs in support of the lawsuit, including the Independent Voter Project (a co-publisher of IVN.us), FairVote, and Better for America. In its amicus brief, IVP wrote:

Put simply, the two major parties have complete control over the initial and most important stages of the political process, including the primary elections and the presidential debates. Unless this Court is willing to consider the consequences of the CPD’s private control over our public discourse, we risk losing our nonpartisan right to a representative democracy forever.” – IVP Amicus Brief

READ MORE: IVP Amicus: Presidential Debates Commission is a Monopoly, Reduces Competition

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by Gov. Gary Johnson, Dr. Jill Stein, the Libertarian and Green parties, and several affiliated organizations in August. However, the D.C. District Court's decision to hear the LPF lawsuit will keep the conversation alive even after the presidential election is over.

Read the full lawsuit here.

Tags: News

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Nonpartisan Issues. Diverse Perspectives.

Check your inbox and click the link to confirm.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Oral Argument Granted for Lawsuit Against Debate Commission

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us