motion to affirm — American Party of Idaho v. Evans

pratin Dearne of Revenue and

;JOE R. WILLIAMS, Idaho.

24, Cte ; ae ©, ie wy ON ; Seki, PETE CENARRUSA,

; r !

*. Was ;

- =. . %

; ; es pe s

« : ¥ ie : ; ij a" : a ;

- = " wl er . * ; oat ‘

gw ez TAS ia Phe ‘ bere ee Gi: regan ;

: v rs / We { ™ ; ss ne: "

5" .. J me =, (a : * ee , Y <

- “ * a t

z > > a : ,- >

ra $ ) ¥ . a)

- : 2 * , = *

it # - 1

“ea - . . . sy “os 4 a

. ae ae ee

2 * t

. « 4-4 * see ™* a,”

. . . * ‘

~ 9 r 4

| te 78 5 J

: : me io. tg Aye

“zx . oe , Sale nar hy > ’

: * i + Py a a . _" ae ~ > +

4 ’ : 4 & 4.02% bo Were,

pi 3 2 rm % ~ & *: +. hae

6 ck ; of : mn. ,

atte r ot “> Sue ’

. * . fe . $

2 . eo ae hat” + 4 -

4 : itie4 7 * .

le ‘ : - - T%;% - .

> . J se hh) a Oe MD RR SES ?. vs *¢

2 . ~ meee,

. & 2 * —-¢ 45? t+ -

* v f i wigs “8 B igi ¥ Tee }

7 : . 7 « :

ee? me re-Z. , , Oa t 4 4 k af % ‘

{7 ¢ ae } 7834 : iy), ola” Ver

7 £ $ e. et,

te

“<= a7 AF

Serta of the State of Idaho;

RJORIE MOON, hpoesures of

fess ‘the State of Idaho, Appellees.

© ON APPEAL FROM THE

STATES rh x pau COURT

:

>

e378 i eee ays. ae “AHO STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, Intervenor

INDEX

Page

I. Motion to affirm judgment __. ee 2

II. Contents of brief in general | 2

| III. The presumption of constitutionality favors

validation of the Idaho Election Campaign

, eres a 2-6

IV. There is no invidious classification of politi-

cal parties fostered or promoted by the dis-

tribution of undesignated funds as directed

by statute | | | Me | 6-9

V. Conclusion i eS Res 9-10

De enh See ES Bs akc eae a 1 11

A. Abstract of votes for Idaho November

1974 General Election | 12-13

B. Affidavit of Dennison C. Ambrose 14-16

C. Affidavit of Benito T. Ysursa, Esq. 17-19

Certificate of mailing 19-20

|

CITATIONS IN THE

pte Supreme Court of the United States

. Page OCTOBER TERM, 1976

McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961) .. 8 No. 76-699

, THE AMERICAN PARTY OF IDAHO,

Buckley v. Valeo, 96 S.Ct. 612 (1976) 4,5, 6,7 JOHN McADAMS,

United States Civil Service Comm'n v. National individually and as chairman of

Association of Letter Carriers, 413 USS. 548 THE AMERICAN PARTY of Idaho, Appellants,

NS CER aE Le hice Za ees oe eee ee aD 5 vs

CECIL ANDRUS, Chairman of the

American Party of Texas v. White, | State Board of Examiners, and the

415 U.S. 767 (1974) CRA OL cee eet Gee Se Idaho State Board of Examiners;

be DENNISON C. AMBROSE, Director of the

McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners, Corporation Department of Revenue and

413 U.S. 458 (1973) . Doce 6 Taxation; JOE R. WILLIAMS, Idaho

) State Auditor; PETE CENARRUSA,

Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 481 (1971). ........ 9 Secretary of the State of Idaho;

and MARJORIE MOON, Treasurer of

NomAnse eee a the State of Idaho, Appellees.

Comment, “Going Public: Reforming Oregon’s IDAHO STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, Intervenor

san tae Finance System”, 55 Oregon L. Rev. . | ON APPEAL FROM THE

) . « a4 @ £2.06 + o wet. &.6 8 mw 6 0) 6 O18 6 8 Se se a | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Comments on Buckley v. Valeo, 76 Columbia | FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

L. Rev. 852 (1976) and 24 Kansas L. Rev. MOTION TO AFFIRM BY INTERVENOR/RESPONDENT

345 (PartI) and 537 (PartII) 4 | PAUL J. BUSER WAYNE L. KIDWELL

| Martin, Chapman, Martin IDAHO ATTORNEY GENERAL

National Association of Attorneys General, P.O. pee ee ATTEISER. — =

Legislative Approaches to Campaign Finance, | yh Intervenor/ tangy

Open Meetings and Conflicts of Interest (1974) . 4 a PRESTON quvTe aarheeeeeeens

se Boise, Idaho 83707

3 ) Attorney for Appellants

2

I.

MOTION TO AFFIRM JUDGMENT

COMES NOW the Intervenor/Respondent and here-

by respectfully moves this Honorable Court, pursuant

to United States Supreme Court Rules 16, 33, 35 and

39, to take the following requested action:

Affirm the Judgment sought to be reviewed on appeal

from the United States District Court for the District

of Idaho on the ground that it is manifest that the

questions on which the decision of the cause depends

are so unsubstantial as not to need further argument

and for other reasons stated in the accompanying brief.

Il.

CONTENTS OF BRIEF IN GENERAL

Pursuant to United States Supreme Court Rule 40

(3), (4) and (5), the Intervenor/Respondent will not

reiterate a statement of the case nor will it include in-

formation as permitted by sections la, 1b, le and 1d of

said rule inasmuch as there are no significant omis-

sions or inaccuracies in Appellants’ statement of the

case nor is Intervenor/Respondent dissatisfied with the

Appellants’ presentation of sections la, 1b, 1c and 1d of

said rule.

Il.

THE PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY

FAVORS VALIDATION OF THE IDAHO ELEC-

TION CAMPAIGN FUND ACT

The basic concept that state legislatures are pre-

sumed to have acted within their constitutional powers,

3

notwithstanding the fact that, in practice, some in-

quality may result, should be applied to the Idaho Elec-

tion Campaign Fund Act dispute. The Idaho legisla-

ture’s discretion, embodied in the Act (Sections 34-2501

et seq, Jdaho Code) should not be set aside merely be-

cause its decision was “discriminating.” If any state

of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify the Act,

it should be upheld. As was stated by McGowan v.

Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 425-426 (1961):

The Constitutional safeguard is offended only if

the classification rests on ground wholly irrele-

vant to the achievement of the State’s objective.

In this case the Idaho legislature designed a law

which allowed citizens individual input on a one-person,

one-vote basis by giving concerned citizen voters an op-

portunity to designate on their individual state income

tax returns one of three categories whereby designa-

tion gave evidence and authority for the Appellees to

distribute money for political campaigns to various

political parties in Idaho as directed by the Election

Campaign Fund Act. The alternative categories were

these: (1) to “check off” a political party which had

its name on the tax return form, (2) to specify a par-

ticular party for the one dollar “tax gift’ when the tax-

payer’s preferred party name was not on the return

form, (3) to check off an undesignated category where-

by the taxpayer waived his or her right to have the

tax gift go to one party only.

The “check off” alternative of financing political

campaigns is not difficult or unusual. At least seven

states in this nation use tax deductions, check-offs or

d

credits as a means of encouraging citizens to contribute

to the political process. Comment, “Going Public: Re-

forming Oregon’s Campaign Finance System”, 55 Ore-

gon L. Rev. 446 (1976); See also, NATIONAL AS-

SOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL, LEGIS-

LATIVE APPROACHES TO CAMPAIGN FI-

NANCE, OPEN MEETINGS AND CONFLICTS OF

INTEREST 16-17 (1974). In reality, taxpayers are

deferring to legislative judgment with regard to the

differential treatment of candidates and political par-

ties. See Comments on Buckley v. Valeo, 96 S. Ct 612

(1976) at 76 Columbia L. Rev. 852 (1976) and 24

Kansas L. Rev. 345 (Part I) and 537 (Part II)

(1976).

The Idaho tax check-off system is a vehicle created

by the state for political contributions which, in turn,

are themselves a form of political expression protected

by the First Amendment of the United States Consti-

tution. The doctrine of one person, one vote should ap-

ply not only to the value of an individual’s ballot, as in

reapportionment cases, but also to the whole electoral

process. In the instant case, that process begins with

the individual state income tax return. To deny a tax-

payer the opportunity of checking a category of un-

designated political parties to receive the one dollar tax

gift is to deny the principle of one person, one unit of

political influence.

Of course, Section 4 (b) of the Idaho Election Cam-

paign Fund Act limits the amounts of dollars a parti-

cular political party can receive. However, the limita-

tions are also made with a view to recognizing minor-

5

ity interests in the political process. Specifically, as to

designated funds, no party shall receive more than

50% of the funds regardless of the amount of popular

support of that party. As to undesignated funds, no

party, whatever its size or popular support, can re-

ceive a smaller or larger share of such fund than any

other party.

The Idaho legislature has indeed been discriminat-

ing, but the effect of the law at issue is not one which

constitutes invidious discrimination, a compelling

threat to constitutional democracy or a significant in-

terference with protected rights of political associa-

tion. “Neither the right to associate nor the right to

participate in political activities is absolute.” United

States Civil Service Comm’n v. National Association of

Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 567 (1973).

The Intervenor/Respondent recognizes the Ameri-

can Party of Idaho has a First Amendment right to

engage in discussion of public issues and to vigorously |

and tirelessly advocate the election of its own candi-

dates. Nevertheless, it is saying that because the maj-

ority stays the majority, the law is wrong. On the con-

trary,

the concept that government may restrict the

speech of some elements of our society in order to

enhance the relative voice of others is wholly for-

eign to the First Amendment. Buckley v. Valeo,

supra at 649.

Appellants are denying the democratic principle of

majority rule in saying, because the “incumbent”

6

powers, the Idaho State Democratic and Republican

parties, retain control over the quality and range of

debate on public issues in a political campaign, there

is a fundamental unfairness in an act which as-

sists them further. Even if this is true, the Idaho legis-

lature must still balance its interest in having to fund

hopeless candidacies with sums of money from the un-

designated funds provided for by the Act.

The United States Constitution does not require the

State of Idaho to provide more money to finance the

efforts of “every nascent political group seeking to or-

ganize itself” just because it has chosen a pattern of

campaign finance assistance based upon the popular

vote and determinants which can be drawn from it.

American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767, 794

(1974) ; Buckley v. Valeo, supra at 672-673. The for-

mula of campaign assistance does not have to be pre-

cise.

The presumption of the constitutionality of the Act

has not been sufficiently rebutted by the Appeliants.

McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners, 413

U.S. 458, 567 (1973).

IV

THERE IS NO INVIDIOUS CLASSIFICATION OF

POLITICAL PARTES FOSTERED OR PROMOTED

BY THE DISTRIBUTION OF UNDESIGNATED

FUNDS AS DIRECTED BY STATUTE

The claim of invidious discrimination by the Appel-

lants does not hold muster because there is no record

evidence of same. This Court has stated that under

7 .

these circumstances courts should generally be “‘hesi-

tant to invalidate legislation which on its face imposes

even-handed restrictions.” Buckley v. Valeo, supra at

641. Had Appellants demonstrated a measurable quan-

tity of community and voter support at the Three-

Judge District Court level, that Court may well have

found the Act to be an excessive and impractical bur-

den upon Appellants. Yet, Appellants have offered no

new or better determinants for the legislative objec-

tive of assisting political parties in their financing of

political campaigns. Absent information other than past

political support as represented by popular vote totals,

the claims of Appellants are purely speculative as to

what could happen in a hypothetical situation which

might later occur.

The Abstract of Votes cast at the General Election

on November 5, 1974 in the State of Idaho, as com-

piled by Idaho Secretary of State Pete T. Cenarrusa,

formed the basis of the distribution of funds, desig-

nated and undesignated, for the 1976 political cam-

paigns in Idaho. A review of those statistics indicates

that the Appellants in Idaho ran only four candidates

for 10 major U.S. and Idaho political offices. The per-

centages of votes cast for American Party candidates

in those four races are as follows:

Office Total Votes Cast Percentage & Number

United States Senate 258,857 1.8% 4,635

Governor 259,672 2.6% 6,759

Lt. Governor 254,810 2.4% 6,319

Treasurer 202,443 15.6% 31,570

(See Appendix A for Complete Abstract)

8

In each case Appellants’ candidates received vote to-

tals so miniscule as not to have any significant effect

on any of the “major party” candidates. Even where

the American Party candidate was the sole opposition

for the Democratic candidate, Appellants’ candidate

received only approximately one-seventh of the total

vote.

Appellants demand strict scrutiny in reviewing the

constitutionality of the law but show no demands made

upon themselves to demonstrate a measurable quantity

of voter and community support. Comparative voting

statistics prove the Act does preserve the integrity of

the Idaho electoral process and fairly reflects public

sentiment.

Appellants ask for an equal voice in the electoral sys-

tem but do not produce the popular backing of the citi-

zenry even without the Act. The 1974 Idaho General

Election statistics were compiled based upon an elec-

tion which had no Act assistance. There is no showing

that a change of the undesignated fund section will

significantly change future election day outcomes.

Appellants say that unless the undesignated fund

distribution formula is changed, new or minor parties

will be forced to cater to the money influences which

the campaign financing act is seeking to play down.

The argument rings hollow. At best, the Appellants

can get 50% of 90% of undesignated funds. Along

with any number of other parties, it can secure an

equal share of the remaining 10 per cent.

Appellants should rather want to emphasize public

drives or campaigns for designated funds for its par-

ty. The bulk of check-offs has gone to designated rather

than undesignated funds. (See Appendices B and C)

Appellants have not shown even a modicum of sup-

port, a standard which they themselves cite as a basis

for distributing funds to aspirant political parties.

Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 442 (1971). Appel-

lants may never succeed in achieving funding parity

but the reason is not the Idaho Election Campaign

Fund. Act. The reason has as much to do with Appel-

lants’ own weak, unorganized political history.

Appellants argue that use of the preceding guber-

natorial election results as a basis for undesignated

fund distribution promotes obsolete and “‘all but dead”

parties. On the other hand, they argue “legislative

enactments which tend to dilute the political strengths

of certain elements of the population are constitution-

ally invalid.” It is alright, in other words, to do away

with parties which are “behind the times” but not per-

missible to stifle the slow, growth of the American

Party of Idaho. The reasoning is inconsistent.

V

CONCLUSION

Intervenor/Respondent respectfully requests this

Court to affirm the judgment of the Three-Judge Fed-

eral District Court sitting in the United States District

Court for the District of Idaho which granted Sum-

mary Judgment in favor of the Defendants and against

Plaintiffs. For the reasons advanced in this brief, the

questions on which the decision of the cause depends

are so unsubstantial as not to need further argument.

10 . il

DATED this 4th day of February, 1977.

Respectfully Submitted,

/3/ PAULJ. BUSER, ESQ.,

of the firm

MARTIN, CHAPMAN, MARTIN

& HYDE, CTD.

Boise, Idaho )

Attorneys for Intervenor/

Respondent

Appendices A, B & C Following

12 13

ABSTRACT OF VOTES ABSTRACT OF VOTES

Cast at the General Election November 5, 1974 Cast at the General Election November 5, 1974

STATE OF IDAHO STATE OF IDAHO

lasued by ete T Cenarrusa, Secretary of State

Representative in Congress Superintendent

COUNTIES US. Senate Gevernor Lieutenant Governor | See. of State Auditer Treasurer Attorney General Public pee CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS Initiative No. }

First District Second District "

E | ‘ =

z c » % | ; s =

« £ $ é ; 5 4 2 5 . A 4 :

SSSR SSBSRCeeP eects eae ee ce ae 5 F 5

h bs Z Z ¢ = x 2 < > z Px} : | 3s = x “

oan . ---~ - ——— +} - —- -—__-4——— -— ——— 4 _-- +—— ——-+——- + — ——— 7 — — 4 -_—____ _4 —__ — - : } —

Rep Dem Amer Rep Dem Rep Dem Rep Dem Amer Rep Dem Amer Rep. Dem Rep Dem Dem Amer Rep Dem. Rep Dem. Yes No Yes No Yes No

—— -———— -- -—- ——— —_—-— . - - - - -_-- b- ---— -- - -—-—- -4 _—--

Ad 20,357 26,439 779 21.878 14.092 5.120 5,550 12.321 44.214 1189 21,541 24,682 1.390 33,307 13,586 18,711 27.7% 38,423 7876 26.131 21,460 19.947 26,923 23,584 17,162 26.454 14,904 35,184 74%

ry 597 613 a 005 36) 136 7M 19 551 583 | 97 349 314 18 668 508 ‘ 590 508 492 402 433 2a

Bannock Sonny ial 318 . a.734 9.266 3,443 14,387 491 5,652 12,108 463 10,021 7 maz 5,442 12,339 14,674 316 9,209 8,916 11,897 10,595 5.515 10,579 5,487 12.588 3,288

Bear Lake 1.150 1,395 49 - . 1,573 oS ? 1,585 135 1.200 i214 iM 1448 oes 960, . 1,875 218 1,108 1,296 1,102 1,278 1.010 1.143 176 1,007 1.275 =

Benewah more 1511 et 1,365 ass | - - asi } 1,908 | 4 641 15 17 naa 1,306 562 1,828 672 14m 1,403 1.385 549 1,838

— = — —— > --—-- ——- - —--~---+4 -- ———4 — i --—---~-+ Le

Bingham 3.3% 5.4m 2 - 4.680 4.062 2.284 6 4m0 wy 4.292 4.469 431 | 5.915 3,069 3.374 5,593 7, LS) 4838 4,208 4,289 4.711 5,226 2680 2,527 6,299 1,835

Riaine 03 1.615 a - 995 1,147 533 181 55 1,065 1,287 35 1,724 628 700 1.502 1874 102 1,019 1,327 958 1,154 1,407 761 1519 628 1,986 378

com mat 450 a $0 oe ss oi be} i-3 oe r= aizo | anes | goss | ost | apes S| soe | som | coee| ame] seep] cam] see] cose] aes] nee

Bonner 2241 4,350 121 3,350 3,064 - 1,636 4.961 163 2.183 4,010 192 . 7 . Y

Bonnevite 7539 | 9.215 438 = —~| wsea} war? |) Suze | 15se ae | s621 | 7.967 432 | iso | 5372 | 7608 | 9106 | 198% | 2.7m | B07 | 8127 | 77m | «8168 | «9029 | 5.766 5.066 | 11,695 | 3.946

-- —_—— - —_——_—— $- ———+4-- ——_——— —_ ———_—— —— —_———— -——-— -——>-— —-+ !

Boundary 1.022 1,302 2 1,361 y27 - - 1,902 4 678 1.498 37 933 1.217 669 1,456 1,715 92 31 1,259 719 1.315 1,042 961 1.228 901 1,524 630

Butte 473 703 15 - 485 630 3u 457 9 493 659 " 720 410 317 moe 51 552 594 609 625 669 349 432 281

Comes 175 227 5 = . 231 149 luz 2965 10 250 150 ‘ se allt 151 wel we at 23 160 ral cate | 197 4 sues At sean be

Canyon 11.614 10,428 263 15,098 7.005 - _ 6.534 15,127 413 | 11,371 10,282 iu” . 4,999 3.838 3,086 8,967 0,831 0,606 4,590

Caribou 1095 | 1.205 64 1.397 Lor | ase | 1076 95 1351 887 5 | 1 200 | 1.008] 11398] 1 729 | 1.079 955 | 1.250 tes | 1ase 746

— ™— or: ee ae T ee a | enmel ot 6am nt oem t seek ann | 300 e046 3.264 2,002 2.369 2,121 1.637 3,431 1,350

Cassa 2a95 2.212 229 3,552 i 1831 3,086 420 3,174 1,787 126 4896 1.346 2.346 3.841 i 3,440 1 2.636

Clark 16m ims - . — 205 137 164 199 7 215 131 n 257 9 156 180 228 2 222 129 188 130 143 1 185 129 228 iM

Clearwater 577 2.039 51 1,132 1,493 - 294 2, 43 615 1,966 i) 1,146 1.448 4n9 2,088 2,332 230 15 1,895 652 1.970 1,509 727 1549 66) 1,858 406

Custer 7 is 22 575 534 576 “5 #92 391 9 750 278 368 780 67 bed 394 $32 481 a ie 602 x79 164 290

Elmore 1,169 2.311 45 | - ; 1,397 1.723 774 2,712 =| 1,299 2.066 is 2,063 1,270 950 2,192 2,747 24 1,538 1821 1181 2,003 2,020 1119 2,096 921 2,655 Sal

—— —-—_ - -+—__ 7 _~ >» ----- —_—_—_—_+4-- —— a

Franklin 1,794 1.441 100 2,137 1,098 1,059 2,105 17: 1,390 1.701 iM | 1,780 1,390 1,305 1874 2,244 1,396 1,743 1,723 1,380 1,185 1499 1,436 1,256 1,673 1,209

Fremont 1.649 1.432 47 . 2,030 1.254 1,169 2.283 91 1,825 1,592 77 2,207 118 1,371 2,598 180 1,934 1,516 1,760 1478 1,680 1,337 172 1,209 2,280 914

Gem 1,722 2.046 61 2.274 14a4 - - 1,139 2.628 49 1,739 1,890 a 2.413 1,209 1,234 2,318 2818 2M 1,987 1,717 1, 2114 1,607 1615 1345 1 2,662 BB6

Gooding 1.899 1,803 61 . . 1g12 1.480 1,192 2.461 a 2,169 492 56 453 1,006 1,363 2 2,714 212 1,963 1,717 1,637 1,757 134 2,022 1 2,740 142

Idaho 1,970 2,276 56 2.498 1,690 - - 1,066 3,150 “4 1,575 2502 | 72 2,168 1,789 1,921 2,728 3.385 139 1,613 2,578 2.277 i 2,469 1,139 3,130 sii

sO -— en - — —— j

Jefferson 2.39% | 1,901 103 -| 260 | 1.390) Leon | 2460 2] 2505] | a3 2am] 1218 | 1,783 2,908 400} 2471 | 17394 | 2317 | 1650) 1,700 | 2822 | 1987 | 1839) 2395 | 1629

Jerome 2282 | 169s 83 - -| 2290} vena | vaa7 | 2655 | uss | osan | asi oo | || 2a8 | 102s | uss] 2191 | 2eee | 266 | 2233 vga? | ieee | ete | tee | 2199] 1175 | 2a58 | 90

tae oe

vatah 2.15 6.438 121 3,775 4,787 7 - 1,307 7,301 112 2.845 5.548 142 4,774 . ’ ° '

Lemh 11M ws 222 - i311 438 1,148 1,017 i 1,416 701 65 1 1,536 598 93 1,135 1,489 163, 126 450 1,243 Raa B52 1,034 1 845 1,266 770

~~ - _-+——

Lewis ag oi4 26 658 642 - 240 1,147 6 377 954 13 564 7 274 9s 1,087 31 399 879 349 560 796 wm 786 369 10@ 277

Lincoln 696, 628 29 731 505 aw 2 an nao “62 24 963 342 481 787 9a3 92 70 Sal 639 568 637 523 745 438 1,015 266

Madison 2.178 2,463 103 . . 4,04” 163 1,634 2 138 2.617 1.964 133 3.285 1,348 2.175 2.453 3,550 1,023 2,714 1 2,747 1,895 2,322 1,787 2,535 1,488 3,174 1,057

Minidoka 2.280 2.392 i“ 2,747 1.983 1,338 3,215 259 2,744 1,833 203 3.416 1,329 1 BS4 3,732 au 2,543 21 2,642 2,087 2.345 1.7% 2,635 1.434 3,353 1,050

Nez Perce | 2.558 6.928 158 4,147 5,331 _ 1.249 8.280 120 2.634 6.685 188 4 4.7% 2,202 7,083 7,978 1,154 3,232 6,215 2,758 6.630 6,010 2.144 6,102 1,967 7,004 1,197

han = 1

Oneida 671 734 im 736 658 440 967 46 399 | 1,016 37 6a 786 woe | tlie] 1082 101 Soy 491 836 604 570 700 472 58 370

Owyhee | 926 994 2 1,347 537 695 1228 27 1,006 438 oe 1.345 496 Bal 1,146 1,400 108 1,069 810 #91 853 788 817 9468 666 1,244 soz

Payette 1 sa6 214 ne 2,552 1,333 _ _ 1.239 2.789 63 1.590 1,923 90 2.413 1300 144i 2,281 2,821 253 2,191 1,698 1,813 1811 2,010 1,336 2,271 1,061 2,940 823

Power 601 1,27 32 941 ] 404 1,47 “4 1 1,064 33 1,183 636 567 1 1 484 101 946 428 892 1,067 605 i 559 13a 07

Shoshone 1.534 3,662 a7 2.028 2,742 - 1,186 4,056 52 1479 3,501 53 2.066 Lb 1,286 4,087 150 1,848 3,162 1,497 3,314 2,906 1,580 3,121 1.368 3,634 1,192

Teton 827 623 17 - 73 386 424 72 is 628 490 12 703 377 406 aR ci $17 560 503 503 556 437 696 34a

Twin Falls 7,794 6.778 303 . 4350 5.486 4,170 989m 737 8.939 5.168 404 10,047 3.834 5,609 7,621 9,720 1,126 7663 6,655 6,912 6,376 4,202 6 B36 3.837 6948 2.474

Valley 772 1,053 23 1,108 637 . . 63 1,404 9 799 971 36 ~~ 340 545 1,179 1,496 652 978 968 668 1,093 544 1 370

Washington 1.37 1.807 ot) 1911 1,062 - age 2313 1,377 1,666 37 1,952 1067 969 1 9m3 2.381 212 1,596 1.492 1,207 1,530 1,386 1,125 1540 938 2,187 617

» see ~> > on

TOTALS 109,072 | 145,140 4.635 75,404 | 54,001 4 67.274 | 53,509 | G6e.731 | 184,182 6,759 | 115,184 | 133,307 6.319 | 159,557 | 89,252 | 91,479 | 154,256 | 198,873 | 31,570 | 130,002 | 121,906 | 107,828 | 137,087 | 131,180 | 87,972 | 139,118 | 76405 | 178,705 | 51,707

— — 4

PLURALITY 6,074 21.413 13,675 115,451 14,123 | 70,305 62,777 167,303 8,096 29.259 43,208 62,713 126,998

J

14

PETER E. HEISER, JR.

Chief Deputy Attorney General

State of Idaho

IN THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

THE AMERICAN PARTY OF IDAHO,

| JOHN McADAMS, individually and as

chairman of THE AMERICAN PARTY

of Idaho,

Plaintiffs,

--VS.--

CECIL D. ANDRUS, Chairman of the

Cok Me. 1 State Board of Examiners, and the Idaho

76 148 | State Board of Examiners; DENNISON

a C. AMBROSE, Director of the Corpora-

DENNISON \ tion Department of the Idaho Department

annie - of Revenue and Taxation; JOE R. WIL-

LIAMS, Idaho State Auditor; PETE

CENARRUSA, Secretary of the State of

Idaho; and MARJORIE MOON, Treas-

urer of the State of Idaho,

Defendants,

IDAHO STATE DEMOCRATIC

PARTY,

Intervenor.

County of Ada

I, Dennison C. Ambrose, being first duly sworn,

depose and say that:

STATE OF IDAHO ls

15

I am the duly appointed, acting and qualified Dep-

uty Commissioner of Department of Revenue and Tax-

ation of the State of Idaho, and am in charge of both

corporate and individual income tax as part of my

duties thereunder;

I am familiar with the number of individual tax-

returns which were filed in the State of Idaho in 1976

and am also familiar with the number of individual

income tax returns filed in 1976 in which individuals

designated that one dollar be paid into the election

campaign fund, pursuant to section 63-3088, Idaho

Code, and, though no figures are yet available for 1975

tax returns, I am also familiar with the ratio of joint

returns by husband and wife to the total number of

individual tax returns as based on information gath-

ered from the 1974 tax year;

I hereby state and affirm that these aforementioned

figures are as follows:

As of July 31, 1976:

$47,362.00 was “checked off” for application to the

election campaign fund at a rate of $1.00 per individ-

ual who utilized the §63-3088 check off procedure for

tax year 1975;

approximately 295,000 Individual Tax Returns

(Form 40) were filed for tax year 1975;

based upon 1974 tax year data, about 42% of all

Individual Tax Returns would be filed by single per-

sons or married persons filing a separate, rather than

16

joint, return, amounting to 123,900 single person re-

turns for the 1975 tax year;

based upon 1974 tax year data, about 58% of all

Individual Tax Returns would be filed by married per-

sons filing jointly, amounting to 171,100 returns rep-

resenting 342,200 individual persons for the 1975

tax year;

the approximate total number of individual persons

who filed Individual Tax Returns for the 1975 tax

year, based upon the above figures, is 466,100 each of

whom could have “checked off” a $1.00 amount for the

election campaign fund;

based upon the above figures approximately 10.16%

(47362/466100) of the individual persons filing In-

dividual Tax Returns for the 1975 tax year chose to

participate in the election campaign fund procedure ;

I do swear and affirm that the above figures are true

and correct to the best of my knowledge;

Further affiant saith not.

DATED this 19 day of August, 1976.

DENNISON C. AMBROSE

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO this 19th day of

August, 1976.

NOTARY PUBLIC

Residing at Boise, Idaho

My Commission expires: 3/22/77

17

PETER E. HEISER, JR.

Chief Deputy Attorney General

State of Idaho

IN THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

| THE AMERICAN PARTY OF IDAHO,

JOHN McADAMS, individually and as

chairman of THE AMERICAN PARTY

of Idaho,

Plaintiffs,

v8.

CECIL D. ANDRUS, Chairman of the

biel th State Board of Examiners, and the Idaho

1 76 14g | State Board of Examiners; DENNISON

one y C. AMBROSE, Director of the Corpora-

BENITO T. \ tion Department of the Idaho Department

YSURSA, | of Revenue and Taxation; JOE R. WIL-

ESQ. _| LIAMS, Idaho State Auditor; PETE

CENARRUSA, Secretary of the State of

Idaho; and MARJORIE MOON, Treas-

urer of the State of Idaho,

Defendants,

IDAHO STATE DEMOCRATIC

| PARTY,

Intervenor.

STATE OF IDAHO

County of Ada =

I, Benito T. Ysursa, Esq., being first duly sworn, de-

pose and state that:

18

I am the duly appointed, acting, and qualified Dep-

uty Secretary of State of the State of Idaho, and pur-

suant to my duties in such position am in charge of

elections in the State of Idaho;

I am duly licensed as an attorney in the State of

Idaho and am admitted to practice before the Supreme

Court of the State of Idaho and the United States Dis-

trict Court for the District of Idaho;

I am familiar with the “undesignated” tax monies

available for distribution to political parties in the

State of Idaho under the formula provided in section

34-2503 (b), Idaho Code, and do hereby state and af-

frm that the monies available and the distribution

which would be applied under said subsection of the

Idahe Code are as follows:

Total aveilable: $16,752 x 90% — $15,076.80

To Democratic Party:

50% x $15,076.80 — $7,538.40 + $996.15

= $8,504.55

To Republican Party:

26.46% x $15,076.80 — $3,990.83 -— $996.15

= $4,956.98

To American Party:

2.6% x $15,076.80 — $392 + $996.15

= $1,358.15

To Labor Party:

$996.15

To Libertarian Party:

$996.15

19

(NOTE: $996.15 equals 10% of the “undesignated”

monies together with other undistributed monies

which, by statute is distributed equally to all political

parties in Idaho.)

The above figures and distribution formula are true

and correct to the best of my knowledge;

Further affiant saith not.

DATED this 19th day of August, 1976.

BENITO T. YSURSA

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 19th

day of August, 1976.

MIREN E. ARTIACH

Notary Public for Idaho

Residing at Boise, Idaho

My commission expires: 4-15-80

COUNTY OF ADA

STATE OF IDAHO

AFFIDAVIT

OF SERVICE

Paul J. Buser, of the firm of MARTIN, CHAPMAN,

MARTIN & HYDE, CHARTERED, being first duly

sworn, deposes and certifies that on this 4th day of

February, 1977, three copies of the Motion to Affirm

by Intervenor/Respondent were mailed, postage pre-

paid, to Attorney for the Appellants and Attorneys for

the Appellees at the following addresses.

20

Preston G. Lutz

P.O. Box 8553

Boise, Idaho 83707

Wayne L. Kidwell

Idaho Attorney General

Attention:

Peter E. Heiser, Jr.

Statehouse _. Room 225

Boise, Idaho 83720

I further certify that all parties required to be serv-

ed have been served.

Counsel for Intervenor/Respondent

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4th day of

February, 1977.

Notary Public for Idaho

Residence: Boise, Idaho