GEORGIA AND ILLINOIS, THE TWO WORST STATES FOR U.S. HOUSE BALLOT ACCESS, LOSE PROCEDURAL RULINGS

Only two states require independent candidates for U.S. House, and the nominees of unqualified parties, to submit petitions of 5% of the electorate. Illinois has been doing that since 1931, and Georgia since 1943. In 2019, U.S. District Courts in both states upheld the 5%. But in June 2020, appeals courts in both states sent the cases back to the U.S. District Court, with instructions to decide them on the evidence.

In both cases, the evidence is overwhelmingly strong that the 5% petitions are too strict. In Georgia no one has complied with it since 1964, and in Illinois, no one has complied with it since 1974.

The Eleventh Circuit issued its Georgia opinion on June 3. Cowen v Georgia Secretary of State, 19-14065. The Seventh Circuit issued its Illinois opinion on June 18. Gill v Scholz, 19-1125. Both opinions say that the lower courts were wrong when they said the 5% must be constitutional, based on past precedents. Both courts said that under Anderson v Celebrezze, a 1983 U.S. Supreme Court that gave instructions on how these cases should be adjudicated, courts must be analytical and base their opinions on facts.

The reason the lower courts had felt obliged to uphold the 5% petitions, despite the clear evidence that they virtually can never be used, is that in 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in Jenness v Fortson, upholding Georgia’s 5% petitions. But in Jenness v Fortson, the Socialist Workers Party (which brought the case) did not provide any evidence that the petition was burdensome. Instead, the party argued that all petition requirements for the general election are unconstitutional, because the state did not require any petitions to get on a primary ballot.

Georgia argued in Jenness that the 5% petitions were not burdensome, because in both elections before the case was brought, a candidate had successfully completed the 5% petition for statewide office. Those two candidates were Bo Callaway, the Republican candidate for Governor in 1966, and George Wallace, the American Party presidential candidate in 1968.

So, based on that little bit of information, the Supreme Court in 1971 upheld the 5% petition. The decision was unanimous, although Justices Hugo Black and John Harlan did not sign it, so the vote was 7-0. The Jenness decision has plagued minor party and independent candidates for almost fifty years, but finally courts are starting to understand that Jenness must be understood in context.

The Eleventh Circuit opinion is written by Judge R. Lanier Anderson, a Reagan appointee; and is signed by Judge Gerald Tjoflat, a Ford appointee, and Judge Adalberto Jordan, an Obama appointee.

The Seventh Circuit opinion is by Judge Michael B. Brennan, and is signed by Judges Michael Scudder and Amy J. St. Eve. All are Trump appointees.

Both decisions are exceedingly careful with the facts, and appear to be entirely free of factual error. Part of the reason the Illinois case was remanded was because the U.S. District Court Judge had depended on another Seventh Circuit precedent which had serious factual errors. It isn’t easy for attorneys to show that past precedents were factually incorrect and therefore should not be relied on.

The statement earlier in this article, saying Illinois hasn’t had a successful use of a 5% petition for U.S. House since 1974, needs to be understood, because Illinois is complicated.

Illinois is the only state in which a petition that doesn’t have enough signatures still puts a party or candidate on the ballot, if no individual files a challenge to that petition. The statement about no successful usage since 1974 only applies to petitions that were challenged. Another tricky aspect to Illinois is that in years ending in the number "two", the 5% requirement does not apply, and instead exactly 5,000 signatures are needed for U.S. House.

And a tricky aspect of the Georgia history is that in 1982, Billy McKinney, an independent did get on the ballot for U.S. House in the Fifth District, but the 5% petition was not in effect in 1982 because the redistricting had been so late in the year. McKinney needed a petition of 1.3%.

On June 18, the Eighth Circuit issued an opinion in Libertarian Party of Arkansas v Thurston, 19-2503. It says the U.S. District Court was correct when in 2019 it enjoined the new Arkansas petition requirement for newly-qualifying parties, 3% of the last gubernatorial vote. The U.S. District Court had put the Libertarian Party on the ballot even though it didn’t comply with the law passed early in 2019, raising the petition from 10,000 signatures to 3% of the last gubernatorial vote, which is 26,746 signatures.

The state had tried very hard to win this case. It had hired two witnesses, a political scientist and also an employee of a professional petitioning company to testify in the state’s favor. But the facts could not be denied. Arkansas had had a 3% petition in place from 1977 through 2006, and in all those years no party ever complied with the law.

Since the June 1 B.A.N. was issued, courts in three states have eased ballot access:

Maryland: on June 19, the state agreed to settle the lawsuit Maryland Green Party v Hogan, 1:20cv-1253. The petition for a new party was cut from 10,000 signatures to 5,000.

Michigan: on June 11, U.S. District Court Judge Matthew F. Leitman, an Obama appointee, ordered ballot access relief for initiatives. The state must extend the deadline, or cut the number of signatures. Sawari Media LLC v Whitmer, e.d., 4:20cv-11246. On June 23, the state filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit.

Michigan(2): on June 10, the state Court of Claims ruled that for initiatives that began to circulate this year or late last year, the law requiring them to get all their signatures in 180 days should be set aside. Fair & Equal Michigan v Benson, 20-000095.

Nevada: on May 29, U.S. District Court Judge Miranda Du, an Obama appointee, extended the deadline for statewide initiative petitions from June 24 to August 5. Fair Maps Nevada v Cegavske, 3:20cv-271. The state did not appeal.

On Sunday, June 21, the Seventh Circuit issued an order in Libertarian Party of Illinois v Cadigan, 20-1961. This is the case in which a U.S. District Court in April had put the statewide nominees of the Libertarian and Green Parties on the ballot automatically, and had cut other minor party and independent petition requirements down to 10% of the normal requirement. The state had tried to reverse all this, but the Seventh Circuit declined to stay the U.S. District Court relief.

The order does not reveal the names of the three judges who handled the appeal.

On June 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, issued a 13-page opinion in Level the Playing Field v Federal Election Commission, 19-5117. It agrees with the U.S. District Court that nothing in the federal campaign laws prohibits the Commission on Presidential Debates from limiting general election debates to candidates who poll at least 15% during September of presidential election years. The decision is by Judge A. Raymond Randolph, a Bush Sr. appointee. It is also signed by Judg Cornelia Pillard, an Obama appointee; and Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee.

It is not known if the case will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision says, "American politics has, for most of American history, been organized around two parties." That is equivalent to upholding school racial segregation on the grounds that it has existed throughout most of U.S. history.

The decision also says that three presidential candidates running outside the major parties polled 15% in the past. The decision says they were George Wallace in 1968, John Anderson in 1980, and Ross Perot in 1992. But Anderson and Perot were never at 15% during September. Perot had left the 1992 race in July and was not even included in the polls during September. He re-entered the race on October 1, 1992, but no poll early in October showed him higher than 7%.

On June 19, President Donald Trump asked the Commission on Presidential Debates to change the schedule and to expand the number of debates. Joe Biden opposes this request. The Commission hasn’t yet responded. Also, on June 22, one of the debate venues, the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, said that it no longer wishes to host its debate. The next day, the Commission said that debate will instead be held in Miami. There is speculation that the debates will be held with no live audience.

On June 26, the U.S. House passed HR 51, which makes most of the District of Columbia a state. The bill changes the boundaries, so that the most important federal government buildings in the center of the city would be outside the proposed state. This would mean that the new state, like any state, would have its own electoral votes. In addition, the government-building-zone, per the 23^rd amendment, would continue to have three electoral votes. However, the 23^rd amendment says Congress has the power to direct how the electoral votes of the "seat of government" area would be chosen. Congress would be free to say that the 3 electoral votes for the "seat of government" zone could be appointed, perhaps by the party that had the most electoral votes from the 51 states.

No Republican voted for the bill, and one Democrat voted against it. Libertarian Justin Amash voted "no."

This is the first time either House of Congress has passed a D.C. statehood bill.

On June 9, the Washington Secretary of State issued an emergency regulation, modifying the procedure by which minor party and independent candidates get on the ballot for president. The law requires a series of so-called "conventions", although in reality the state only requires the petitions to be gathered in fixed locations. Each location must collect at least 100 signatures, and the various collection points must gather at least 1,000 signatures all together. Several weeks are allowed, but all petitioning locations must be announced at least ten days in advance, with newspaper notices.

The emergency regulation permits a simpler method. Candidates simply collect 1,000 signatures during the same period, although again they must run newspaper ads telling people how to sign the petition.

During June, the Democratic Party won one lawsuit against a state law that puts Republicans on the top line on the general election ballot, and lost another one.

Arizona: on June 25, U.S. District Court Judge Diane Humetewa, an Obama appointee, ruled that the plaintiffs in Mecinas v Hobbs, 2:19cv-5547, lack standing. There were no candidate-plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Arizona law puts lets the gubernatorial vote determine which party has the top line on the ballot. In counties in which the Republican Party carried the gubernatorial vote in 2018, all Republican nominees are in the top spot for 2020 and 2022. Arizona has fifteen counties, and the Republican nominee for Governor carried eleven of them in 2018.

Minnesota: on June 15, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Richard Nelson, an Obama appointee, ordered the state to hold a random drawing to determine the order of candidates on the ballot. The drawing is only for qualified parties. Minnesota has four qualified parties: Democratic-Farmer-Labor, Republican, Legal Marijuana Now, and Grassroots-Legalize Cannabis. Pavek v Simon, 0:19cv-3000.

The Democratic Party had filed this case. Current Minnesota law says among the qualified parties, the one that polled the smallest vote in the previous election should have its nominees listed first on the ballot. The qualified party with the largest vote is beneath the other qualified parties. The Democratic Party got the most votes in 2018. Of course, if the party loses the random drawing for 2020, it won’t be any better off than it had been before the lawsuit was filed. The party preferred that all candidates be rotated within each precinct, but the judge says that is too complicated.

The health crisis has led both major parties to make drastic changes in their presidential conventions.

The Republican Party will nominate for president on August 24 in Charlotte. Only six delegates from each state and territory will participate in the vote. All states and territories will therefore have the same voting power. If the re-nomination of President Donald Trump weren’t assured, that would be a very controversial change. Always before, major party presidential conventions have awarded more delegates to populous states than other states.

After one day in Charlotte, the convention will then move to Jacksonville, Florida, for a mass gathering which will not actually conduct any business.

The party will not change its platform, which was last amended in 2016. That is awkward, because the 2016 denounces the "current administration."

The Democratic Party will hold a virtual convention. Delegates will vote remotely. The platform committee will be holding virtual meetings in advance of the convention, which is still set for four days, August 17-20.

On June 24, U.S. District Court Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo, an Obama appointee, dismissed the Texas Democratic Party’s lawsuit that had been filed to restore the straight-ticket device. The Texas legislature had repealed the device in 2018. Bruni v Hughs, s.d., 5:20cv-35.

The only states that still have the device are Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Oklahoma, and South Carolina.

During June, the U.S. Supreme Court continued its habit of shunning most election law cases.

Arizona: on June 15, the Court refused to hear Arizona Libertarian Party v Hobbs, 19-757. The Ninth Circuit had upheld the 2015 law that has kept all Libertarians off their own primary ballot, for congress and state office, in 2016, 2018, and 2020. The court continues its habit of rejecting all ballot access cert petitions filed by minor parties and independent candidates, since 1991.

Ohio: on June 25, the Court refused to get involved in Thompson v DeWine, 19A1054. The U.S. District Court in Ohio had ordered the state to accept electronic signatures for initiative petitions, but the Sixth Circuit had reversed that order. The initiative proponents had hoped the U.S. Supreme Court would countermand the Sixth Circuit.

Texas: on June 26, the Court refused to intervene in Texas Democratic Party v Abbott, 19A1055. The Democratic Party of Texas filed the lawsuit against the law that says only voters age 65 and above can participate in no-excuse absentee voting. The party wants all voters to have that choice, and argued that the Texas law violates the 26^th Amendment, which outlaws age discrimination in voting, for persons age 18 and above.

Missouri: on June 4, Missouri Governor Mike Parson signed SB 631. It raises filing fees for candidates. The presidential primary fee rises from $1,000 to $5,000. Statewide non-presidential office goes from $200 to $500; U.S. House and State Senate from $100 to $300; State House from $50 to $150.

New Mexico: on June 20, the legislature passed SB 4, which lets independent voters change their registration to a party as late as primary election day.

Alaska: on June 4, the Libertarian Party filed a federal lawsuit, seeking ballot access relief due to the health crisis. Alaska Libertarian Party v Fenumiai, 3:20cv-127.

Alaska(2): on June 12, the State Supreme Court said that a proposed 2020 initiative does not violate the "single-subject" rule. It imposes a top-four system, eliminating party nominees for all races except president. It also makes campaign finance changes, and says the general election (but not the primary) will use ranked choice voting. Meyer v Alaskans for Better Elections, S17629. If the initiative passes, it will make it more difficult for parties to remain on the ballot. They won’t be able to stay on by meeting the 3% vote test; instead they can only remain on with the alternate registration test.

Arkansas: on June 24, U.S. District Court Judge Kristen Baker, an Obama appointee, refused ballot access relief to some independent candidates, despite the difficulty of petitioning during the health crisis. Whitfield v Thurston, e.d., 4:20cv-466. She said the burden is not "severe." On June 26, the candidates appealed.

California: on June 9, proponents of a statewide initiative filed a lawsuit in state court, asking for more time to complete their petition. Macarro v Padilla, Sacramento Superior Court, 34-2020-8003404-CU. It has a hearing on July 2.

Connecticut: on June 8, U.S. District Court Janet Hall, a Clinton appointee, denied any further reduction in primary petition requirements. The Governor had already cut down the number to 70% of normal. Gottlieb v Lamont, 3:20cv-623.

Georgia: on June 22, the state conceded that it cannot defend its law that says recall petitions cannot be circulated by non-residents of the jurisdiction. Malone v Raffensperger, n.d., 1:20cv-2513. The same law also says recall circulators must be registered voters, and the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that states cannot require circulators to be registered voters.

Florida: on June 8, U.S. District Court Judge Mark E. Walker, an Obama appointee, denied injunctive relief to the Independent Party, and the Party for Socialism & Liberation. They are ballot-qualified, yet a 2011 Florida law says even ballot-qualified parties can’t be on for president unless they are recognized by the Federal Election Commission, or unless they submit a petition of 132,781 signatures. The parties have appealed. The Eleventh Circuit is expediting the case.

Maine: on June 11, U.S. District Court Judge Lance E. Walker, a Trump appointee, refused to put the Libertarian Party on the ballot. Baines v Dunlap, 1:19cv-509. The party had gone off the ballot in November 2018 for failing to have 10,000 registered members. The ruling does say it is probably unconstitutional for the state to have erased all the party’s registered voters when it went off the ballot. At that time the party had about 5,400 registered members. If it had been allowed to keep them, it could have instantly re-qualified as a new party, which takes 5,000 registered voters. The party is asking for reconsideration.

Maine(2): on June 19, Tiffany Bond, an independent candidate for U.S. Senate, filed a federal lawsuit, asking for petitioning relief due to the health crisis. She needs 4,000 signatures. Bond v Dunlap, 1:20cv-216.

Michigan: on June 18, Joseph Kishore, the Socialist Equality Party candidate for president, filed a federal lawsuit for petitioning relief, for the independent presidential petition, due to the health crisis. Kishore v Whitmer, e.d., 2:20cv-11605.

Minnesota: on May 29, U.S. District Court Judge David S. Doty, a Reagan appointee, upheld two ballot access laws: (1) the two-week petitioning period for non-presidential independent petitions; (2) the wording on those petitions that says the signer does not intend to vote for the same office in any primary. Libertarian Party of Minnesota v Simon, 0:19cv-2312. The party is appealing.

New Hampshire: on June 8, the Libertarian Party filed a federal lawsuit for ballot access relief, due to the health crisis. Libertarian Party of New Hampshire v Sununu, 1:20v-688.

New York: on May 29, the Working Families Party filed a federal lawsuit against the new definition of a qualified party that was created on April 3, 2020. The old definition was a group that polled 50,000 votes for Governor. The new definition requires that the vote test be met every two years, for president and governor, and is 130,000 votes or 2%, whichever is greater. Hurley v Kosinski, s.d, 1:20cv-4148.

North Dakota: on June 15, U.S. District Judge Peter Welte, a Trump appointee, refused injunctive relief to proponents of an initiative, notwithstanding the health crisis. Sinner v Jaeger, 3:20cv-76. The initiative proponents have voluntarily dismissed their case and will not appeal.

Ohio: on May 29, Howie Hawkins filed a federal lawsuit for ballot access relief. Hawkins v DeWine, s.d., 2:20cv-2871. The lawsuit asks for a cut in the number of signatures, both for the party petition, and the independent petition.

Rhode Island: on June 16, several primary candidates filed a federal lawsuit for ballot access relief. Acosta v Restrepo, 1:20cv-262.

Texas: on June 23, the Texas State Appeals Court heard Dikeman v Hughs, 14-19-00969. This is the Libertarian Party lawsuit against the 2019 law that says candidates who are seeking the nomination of a party that nominates by convention must pay the same filing fee that primary candidates must pay. A decision is expected soon.

Virginia: the ballot access lawsuit filed by the Libertarian, Green, Constitution, and Independent Green Parties in May almost was settled, but at the last minute, the State Board of Elections rejected the deal, so the case will have a hearing in U.S. District Court on July 13. Libertarian Party of Virginia v State Board of Elections, e.d., 3:20cv-349.

State	Requirements		Signatures Collected			Three Types of Deadlines
	Full Party	Cand.	Lib’t	Green	Consti	Full Party	Pres Party	Pres. Ind.
Ala.	51,588	5,000	*3,200	*100	0	Mar. 3	Mar. 3	*Aug. 20
Alaska	(reg) 8,358	#3,212	*3,500	*3,700	*4,000	May 4	Aug. 5	Aug. 5
Ariz.	31,686	#37,769	already on	*0	*0	Nv 29 2019	Sep. 4	Sep. 4
Ark.	10,000	#1,000	already on	*100	already on	in court	Aug. 3	Aug. 3
Calif.	(es) (reg) 65,000	196,964	already on	already on	232	Oct 2 2019	July 6	Aug. 7
Colo.	(reg) 1,000	#pay $1,000	already on	already on	already on	Jan. 10	Aug. 5	Aug. 5
Conn.	no procedure	#*5,250	already on	already on	0	– –	Aug. 5	Aug. 5
Del.	(reg) 720	7,118	already on	already on	*282	Aug. 25	Aug. 25	July 15
D.C.	no procedure	(est.) #5,000	already on	already on	*0	– –	Aug. 5	Aug. 5
Florida	get FEC recog.	132,781	already on	already on	already on	April 15	Sep. 1	July 15
Georgia	64,354	#7,500	already on	*in court	0	Aug. 14	Aug. 14	Aug. 14
Hawaii	757	#4,347	already on	already on	already on	Feb. 24	Aug. 5	Aug. 5
Idaho	13,809	1,000	already on	*400	already on	Aug. 31	Aug. 31	Aug. 24
Illinois	no procedure	#2,500	*already on	*already on	*0	– –	*July 20	*July 20
Indiana	no procedure	#44,935	already on	0	0	– –	June 30	June 30
Iowa	no procedure	#1,500	*200	0	0	– –	Aug. 14	Aug. 14
Kansas	21,112	5,000	already on	*0	0	June 1	June 1	Aug. 3
Ky.	no procedure	#5,000	already on	0	0	– –	Sep. 4	Sep. 4
La.	(reg) 1,000	#pay $500	already on	already on	158	May 18	Aug. 21	Aug. 21
Maine	(reg) 5,000	#4,000	*in court	already on	0	Jan. 2	*July 25	*July 25
Md.	*5,000	10,000	*3,300	*5,500	0	Aug. 3	Aug. 3	Aug. 3
Mass.	(est) (reg) 45,000	#10,000	already on	already on	281	Feb. 4	Aug. 2	July 28
Mich.	42,506	12,000	already on	already on	already on	July 16	July 16	July 16
Minn.	129,365	#2,000	*100	0	0	May 1	Aug. 18	Aug. 18
Miss.	be organized	1,000	already on	already on	already on	Feb. 1	Sep. 4	Sep. 4
Mo.	10,000	10,000	already on	already on	already on	July 27	July 27	July 27
Mont.	5,000	#5,000	already on	already on	0	in court	Aug. 12	Aug. 12
Nebr.	6,980	2,500	already on	0	0	Aug. 3	Aug. 3	Aug. 3
Nev.	9,608	9,608	already on	100	already on	June 5	June 5	July 10
N. Hamp.	17,209	*in court	*20	0	0	Aug. 5	Aug. 5	Aug. 5
N.J.	no procedure	#800	*400	*600	*100	– –	July 27	July 27
N. M.	3,483	3,483	already on	already on	already on	June 25	June 25	June 25
N.Y.	no procedure	*unknown	already on	already on	can’t start	– –	*unknown	*unknown
No. Car.	11,778	in court	already on	already on	already on	May 18	May 18	*in court
No. Dak.	7,000	#4,000	already on	0	0	Apr. 10	Aug. 31	Aug. 31
Ohio	44,296	*in court	already on	5,500	0	July 1	Aug. 5	Aug. 5
Okla.	35,592	#pay $35,000	already on	0	0	Feb. 28	July 15	July 15
Oregon	27,960	17,893	already on	already on	already on	Aug. 25	Aug. 25	Aug. 25
Penn.	no procedure	#*in court	*800	*200	*100	– –	Aug. 3	Aug. 3
R.I.	18,758	#1,000	0	0	0	Aug. 3	Sep. 4	Sep. 4
So. Car.	10,000	10,000	already on	already on	already on	May 4	May 8	July 15
So. Dak.	3,393	3,393	already on	0	0	July 1	July 1	Aug. 4
Tenn.	56,083	275	*50	0	*50	Aug. 5	Aug. 5	Aug. 18
Texas	83,435	79,939	already on	already on	in court	May 25	May 25	May 11
Utah	2,000	1,000	already on	already on	already on	Nv 30 2019	Nv 30 2019	Aug. 17
Vermont	be organized	#*0	already on	*0	0	De 31 2019	Aug. 3	Aug. 3
Virginia	no procedure	*in court	*1,600	0	0	– –	Aug. 21	Aug. 21
Wash.	no procedure	#1,000	*500	*50	can’t start	– –	July 25	July 25
West Va.	no procedure	#7,145	already on	already on	0	– –	Aug. 3	Aug. 3
Wisc.	10,000	#2,000	0	0	already on	April 2	Aug. 4	Aug. 4
Wyo.	4,018	4,018	already on	0	already on	June 1	June 1	Aug. 25
States On			37*	23*	16	~

# partisan label permitted. *change since the last petitioning chart, which was in the April 1, 2020, newsletter. "No procedure" means that state has no means for a group to transform itself into a qualified party in advance of the election.

The Green Party does not nominate for president until July 11, but by June 21, enough state delegations to the national convention had been chosen so that it is possible to predict that Howie Hawkins will be the nominee. Green Party delegates are pledged on the first ballot.

Hawkins is striving to qualify for primary season matching funds. He appears to be the only presidential candidate who is likely to apply for, and receive, such funds.

D.C. Green Party: write-ins 335.

Montana Green Party: no preference 352.

New Mexico Libertarian Party: Jo Jorgensen 520; uncommitted 330; Lincoln Chafee 158; Jacob Hornberger 154; Adam Kokesh 124; Sam Robb 90; John Monds 63; Daniel Behrman 58; Arvin Vohra 39; James Ogle 34.

On June 20, the Reform Party held a virtual presidential convention. Rocky De La Fuente, who was the party’s nominee in 2016, is the 2020 nominee. The vote: De La Fuente 17; Max Abramson 4; Ben Zion one. Soraya Faas had withdrawn before the meeting and had endorsed De La Fuente. The vice-presidential nominee is Darcy Richardson. The Reform Party is only on the ballot in Florida.

Colorado: on March 8, the Approval Voting Party nominated Blake Huber for President and Frank Atwood for Vice-President.

Michigan: on June 23, the Natural Law Party nominated Rocky De La Fuente for President and Darcy Richardson for Vice-President.

The Aloha Aina Party, a new ballot-qualified party in Hawaii, has 14 legislative candidates running in its primary. The state only has 65 state legislative races. The party holds itself out as representative of the native Hawaiian people.

On June 28, Emidio "Mimi" Soltysik died at the age of 45. He was the Socialist Party presidential candidate in 2016. He was also the plaintiff in the California lawsuit over party labels for members of unqualified parties. He had won a procedural victory in Soltysik v Padilla, sending his case back to U.S. District Court. But he couldn’t particpate in the trial due to his health problems, and had to dismiss the case.

The Working Families Party has successfully petitioned for party status in New Mexico. This is the first party petition carried out by the Working Families Party in any state, since it qualified in Oregon a decade ago. The party is also on the ballot in Connecticut, New York, Oregon, and South Carolina.

North Dakota is the only state in which primary candidates must not only win their primary, but also must poll a minimum number of votes, in order to be on the general election ballot. For statewide office, 300 votes are required in the open primary. At the June 9 primary, the three statewide Libertarian candidates each polled more than double the requirement. By comparison, in 2018 the only statewide Libertarian did not pass the vote test.