The Ninth Circuit expects to set an oral argument in March 2019 for De La Fuente v Wyman, 18-35208. This is a Washington state ballot access lawsuit. Rocky De La Fuente won in U.S. District Court, in his challenge to a state law that requires petitioners for independent presidential candidates to publish a notice in a newspaper at least ten days before they start to petition. The notice must say where the petitioning will be carried out. The state is trying to overturn the U.S. District Court decision.
Also, the Ninth Circuit has moved the date for the oral argument in the Arizona Libertarian ballot access case away from February. It will be in March, or possible a later month. This is Libertarian Party of Arizona v Reagan, 17-16491, a challenge to the number of signatures needed to get a member of a small qualified party on his or her primary ballot. This is the law that kept all Libertarians off the November 2018 Arizona ballot. The law did not apply to the Green Party.
Why doesn’t the law apply to the Green Party? Could it be the green-themed names proposed for the expansion Seattle NHL team? “Emeralds” and “Evergreens” in the running: https://www.si.com/nhl/2018/12/04/seattle-team-name-totems-metropolitans-evergreens-sockeyes-rainiers
The bad law only applies to parties that have been on the ballot continuously for at least four years. Libertarians remain qualified in Arizona because they have 2/3rds of 1% of the registration. Greens don’t, so they go off the ballot every four years. Parties that go off the ballot have no trouble nominating candidates in their primaries. In effect Arizona is penalizing minor parties that show more support, than minor parties that show less support. It is insane.
NOT insane — perfectly STATIST and UNEQUAL.
Likely too late to get SCOTUS action before Nov 2020 election.
@JB,
Arizona said that all parties had to permit non-affiliated voters to vote in their primaries. The Libertarians sued and won. The SOS then required Libertarian candidates to gather signatures from Libertarians only (those eligible to vote in the primary). The Libertarians reopened their primary.
The new law bases the number of signatures on the potential electorate for the party. Republicans, Democrats, and unafilliated have about 35%, 31%, and 33% of the electorate, while the Libertarians have 0.85%. So the base for the major parties doubled, but the factor was cut in half, so the totals remained the same.
But the base for the Libertarians is about 40 times their own numbers. Even with the halving of the factor they need 20 times the signatures as before. With it hard to even qualify for the primary ballot, candidates for nomination have to run as write-ins. With nobody on the ballot, even registered Libertarians are less likely to vote. Few independents are going to select the Libertarian ballot even if they are inclined to vote for a Libertarian candidate.
It is as if they handed voters a blank sheet of paper. The voter might ask what to do with that. The election clerk might suggest, “fold a paper airplane, color it with crayons, throw it in trash, it really doesn’t matter.” Since there is no meaningful primary, a voter might simply not affiliate with a party, and perhaps vote in presidential or senatorial, or gubernatorial primaries.
Arizona should candidates as individuals and dispense with partisan nominations. If the standard was 0.1% of the gubernatorial election turnout, in Arizona the statewide requirement would be 2377, 265 for Congress, and 80 for the legislature.
Instead of petitions, supporters would gather at courthouses and be counted.
Washington should eliminate nominations for presidential electors, and use Top 2 instead with electors chosen by congressional district, and one each for two halfs of the state.
Instead of petitions or conventions, supporters would gather at courthouses and be counted. Appointments would be made. It would be up to the candidate to publicize the event.
How many miles to courthouses in larger counties ???
Mail somehow gets to every mailing address — esp tax forms and utility bills ???
@DR,
If there really is support for a De La Fuente candidacy, they will figure out away to get the supporters to the county courthouses.