Skip to content
Sign up free
Election Reform

Stage Set for Lawsuit Against Debate Commission’s Rigged Rules for Candidate Inclusion

By Shawn Griffiths

2-minute read

An appellate court will hear oral arguments in an ongoing lawsuit against the Commission on Presidential Debates for its exclusionary debate rules that protect the two major parties from competition in presidential elections. The DC Circuit of the US Court of Appeals has scheduled oral arguments for Monday, February 24, 2020.

The specific rule being challenged is the debate commission’s 15% rule, which requires third party or independent candidates with little name recognition and resources to poll at 15% in 5 national polls hand-picked by the debate commission. They have to accomplish this feat even as pollsters bury their names, the media ignores them, and the electoral rules require them to spend all of their resources just to gain and keep ballot access.

The undisputed fact is: The debate commission was formed as a partnership between the Republican and Democratic Parties, and they have set rules that endorse the candidates of these two private political corporations and deny American voters competition in the process.

Level the Playing Field (LPF) originally filed the lawsuit in 2015 against the FEC, the government agency tasked with regulating groups like the debate commission. The LPF argues that the FEC acted “arbitrarily, capriciously, and contrary” to federal law when it ignored administrative complaints against the debate commission prior to the lawsuit being filed.

A district court dismissed the lawsuit earlier this year after previously agreeing with the plaintiffs that the FEC was acting contrary to law. However, LPF, with the support of organizations like the Independent Voter Project, is continuing to challenge the CPD’s rules as well as its tax-exempt status as a nonpartisan organization when many of its members have a political and financial investment in the success of the Republican or Democratic Party.

There is an underlining sense of urgency with the appeal as we are less than a year from the 2020 general election, and even closer to the first presidential debate — if that debate even happens.

Recent reports and comments from President Donald Trump himself that he may skip the debates could mean no debates at all even as other candidates emerge outside the major parties. This is because under the current rules there can be no more than two candidates, and there can’t be a debate with a single candidate.

The absence of one of the major party candidates could give a third party candidate or independent an extraordinary opportunity to give voters the competition they overwhelmingly want — the alternative option and voice they overwhelmingly want.  But the rules are in place to protect the power of the two major parties.

Plaintiffs no doublet seek a quick ruling on the evidence that the debate commission is putting the interests of the Republican and Democratic Parties over its obligation to set nonpartisan and objective rules for debate entry.

Read more about the lawsuit against the Presidential Debate Commission on the Independent Voter Project's website.

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. Point search engines to the original. Set the canonical URL of your copy to the original IVN article (the HTML we give you includes the tag).
  3. 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 ...").
  4. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  5. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  6. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  7. 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.
  8. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  9. 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.
  10. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  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

Stage Set for Lawsuit Against Debate Commission’s Rigged Rules for Candidate Inclusion

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