# motion to affirm — American Party of Idaho v. Evans > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_0902%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** motion to affirm - **Published:** January 1, 1977 - **Citation:** 430 U.S. 912 ## Text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_0902%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.