Federal Judge Rules Against Presidential Debate Commission

image
Published: 01 Feb, 2017
1 min read

In a surprising decision, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. ruled against the Federal Election Commission in the case of Level the Playing Field et al v. Federal Election Commission holding that the rules governing participation in the presidential debates were decided unfairly and arbitrarily.

Level the Playing Field (LPF), the organization that brought the suit, challenged the 501(c)(3) nonprofit status of the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) arguing it used unfair criteria to determine the participants of the 2016 presidential debates.

During oral arguments Lead Attorney for LPF, Alexandra Shapiro, argued the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) should lose its nonprofit status due to the unfair criteria used to determine eligibility in the presidential debates. The CPD, which is regulated by the Federal Election Commission, excluded non-major party candidates from participating in the debates in light of its 15 percent rule. According to the CPD, in order to participate in the presidential debates, a candidate must have "a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations..."

Judge Chutkan's ruling in favor of LPF grants their motion for summary judgement and ordered the FEC to reconsider the allegations against the CPD within 30 days. The order states:

“The FEC is ORDERED to reconsider the evidence and allegations and issue a new decision consistent with this Opinion “within 30 days, failing which the complainant may bring, in the name of such complainant, a civil action to remedy the violation involved in the original complaint.”... The FEC is FURTHER ORDERED to reconsider the Petition for Rulemaking and issue a new decision consistent with this Opinion within sixty days.”

READ: The Opinion from the District Judge

READ: Judge Chutkan's Order

READ: Independent Voter Project's Amicus Brief

Watch: IVN’s Jeff Powers Explain Who Controls the CPD

https://www.facebook.com/IVN/videos/10153233875837465/

Image: Tstuddud

You Might Also Like

Ballrooms, Ballots, and a Three-Way Fight for New York
Ballrooms, Ballots, and a Three-Way Fight for New York
The latest Independent Voter Podcast episode takes listeners through the messy intersections of politics, reform, and public perception. Chad and Cara open with the irony of partisan outrage over trivial issues like a White House ballroom while overlooking the deeper dysfunctions in our democracy. From California to Maine, they unpack how the very words on a ballot can tilt entire elections and how both major parties manipulate language and process to maintain power....
30 Oct, 2025
-
1 min read
California Prop 50 gets an F
Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an 'F'
The special election for California Prop 50 wraps up November 4 and recent polling shows the odds strongly favor its passage. The measure suspends the state’s independent congressional map for a legislative gerrymander that Princeton grades as one of the worst in the nation....
30 Oct, 2025
-
3 min read
bucking party on gerrymandering
5 Politicians Bucking Their Party on Gerrymandering
Across the country, both parties are weighing whether to redraw congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Texas, California, Missouri, North Carolina, Utah, Indiana, Colorado, Illinois, and Virginia are all in various stages of the action. Here are five politicians who have declined to support redistricting efforts promoted by their own parties....
31 Oct, 2025
-
4 min read