On November 1, the 6th circuit heard arguments in Nader v Land, over whether the Michigan Secretary of State should have put Ralph Nader on the ballot as the Reform Party nominee last year. Nader’s attorney, law professor Bruce Afran, based his argument on the US Supreme Court precedents from the 1970’s and 1980’s that protected major party presidential conventions from state election laws. Of course, those precedents only protected the national conventions from being told which delegates to seat. Afran hopes to persuade the 6th circuit that the logic of those cases means that when a national convention makes an undisputed presidential nomination, all states where that party is on the ballot must respect that decision.

In the case of the Michigan Reform Party, one faction of the state party wanted to nominate Nader, but the other faction wanted no presidential nominee. The Michigan Secretary of State refused to decide which set of state party officers were legitimate, and left all of the party’s nominees off the ballot.

Michigan argued that the case is moot, and that in any event Nader lacks standing to complain about the Reform Party nomination, since he got on the ballot as an independent last year anyway.