Back on February 18, 2009, the ACLU Voting Rights office sued South Dakota election officials for removing two voters from the voter registration rolls, in apparent disregard of state law. South Dakota, like most states, does not permit felons to vote while they are imprisoned. The lawsuit charged that two voters had their names removed from the rolls after they were convicted of a felony, even though they were not sentenced to prison. This apparently happened because communication between federal courts and elections officials is faulty. The federal court e-mails a message to the Secretary of State when someone is convicted of a felony in federal court in South Dakota. But the e-mail does not disclose whether that individual was sentenced to prison or not. Elections officials assumed the two individuals were sent to prison (even though they weren’t sentenced to prison), and removed them from the rolls.
On February 8, 2010, nearly a year after the initial case was filed, the ACLU expanded the case, and seeks to make it a class action. This is because the ACLU believes the problem involves hundreds of individuals, not just two individuals. Here is the amended complaint. The case is Janis v Nelson, 09-5019.
I would be curious what information you have on this issue in Texas. I know the Anderson case was a presidential case, but a careful reading of the opinion opened the door to an equal challenge to a state law for state candidates.
Those of us to have lived history remember John B. Anderson. the following quote is from the SUpreme Court opinion. I have always maintained that the Texas system may be unconstitutional based on the Anderson case. This country is ready for a strong independent – I would love to see several locally and for governor.
“If the State’s filing deadline were later in the year, a newly emergent independent candidate could serve as the focal point for a grouping of Ohio voters who decide, after mid-March, that they are dissatisfied with the choices within the two major parties.”
“We also find no merit in the State’s claim that the early filing deadline serves the interest of treating all candidates alike. Brief for Respondent 33. It is true that a candidate participating in a primary election must declare his candidacy on the same date as an independent. But both the burdens and the benefits of the respective requirements are materially different, and the reasons for requiring early filing for a primary candidate are inapplicable to independent candidates in the general election.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=460&page=780
The Texas independent presidential deadline of early May was upheld in 2004 in a case brought by Ralph Nader, Nader v Connor. The US Supreme Court then refused to hear Nader’s appeal. The Texas deadline ought to be found unconstitutional based on Anderson v Celebrezze, as you say. There are no presidential independent petition deadlines earlier than mid-June, except for the Texas deadline. June petition deadlines for independent presidential candidates have been invalidated in Arizona, Kansas, Massachusetts, and South Dakota.