By coincidence, December 6 is the deadline for government responses in four important ballot access cases.

Georgia’s response brief to the U.S. Supreme Court is due in Coffield v Kemp, the case that challenges ballot access laws for independent and minor party candidates for U.S. House.  It is possible that Georgia will choose not to respond.

Pennsylvania’s response to the 3rd circuit is due in Constitution Party v Cortes, the case that challenges the state’s unique system of threatening minor party and independent candidates with fees ranging up to $110,000 if they submit petitions that don’t have enough valid signatures.  The case also challenges the 15% registration membership test for a party to be exempt from petitioning for its nominees, and the failure of elections officials to count many write-ins, and the state’s failure to provide write-in tallies for candidates such as Cynthia McKinney (Green Party write-in presidential candidate in 2008 in Pennsylvania).

California’s response to the State Supreme Court is due in Field v Bowen, the case that challenges the implementation of the top-two law, on the matter of inequality in ballot labels.

New York state’s response to the U.S. District Court in Credico v State Board of Elections is actually overdue.  It was due Friday, December 3, but the state asked for two more months.  Plaintiffs are opposing this time extension.  This is the case attacking New York state law that discriminates against unqualified parties in fusion.  If two qualified parties jointly nominate the same candidate, the candidate’s name is listed twice on ballots; but if two unqualified parties do the same thing, the candidate’s name is only listed once.