Democratic Party officials continue to say that they must certify their presidential nominee by August 7, because of an Ohio election law on deadlines for such certifications. Yet the Ohio deadline was eased on June 2, when Governor Mike DeWine signed HB 2 into law. HB 2 says that for 2024 only, the deadline will be September 1. Here is the legislature’s analysis of the bill. The old deadline had been August 7. The Democratic National Convention starts on August 21.

Some Democrats say that there is still a problem, because HB 2 goes into effect on September 1, 2024. They say that because the deadline remains August 7 until the new law takes effect, they are afraid that the old law will control. But a unanimous list of precedents from around the nation shows their fears are unjustified. When a state eases a ballot access law, but the new law doesn’t take effect until some point in the future (but before the date of the upcoming election), the instant the new law takes effect, the beneficial results go into effect. It doesn’t matter what the law had said in the immediate past.

Here are the precedents, all of which involve instances when a state eased the definition of a qualified party so that some particular party hadn’t met the old requirement and had therefore gone off the ballot, but it did meet the new requirement. In each case the party was automatically back on the ballot after an interval in which it had not been on.

1. California 1958. The Prohibition Party went off the ballot in November 1958 because it didn’t poll as much as 3%. In 1959 the legislature passed a bill lowering the vote test to 2%, effective January 1, 1960. On January 1, 1960, the Prohibition Party was automatically back on the ballot.

2. Colorado 1998. The legislature in 1998 eased the definition of a party from a group that had polled 10% for Governor, to a group that had 1,000 registrants. Instantly all the parties that met the new requirement were qualified for the 1998 election.

3. Louisiana 1916. The Republican Party went off the ballot in November because it didn’t poll as much as 10% of the vote for president; it only got 6.95%. In 1918 the legislature eased the vote test to 5% and the minute the bill went into effect, the Republican Party was automatically back on the ballot.

4. Maine 1998. The Reform Party went off the ballot in November because it hadn’t polled 5% for Governor, and the law at the time said a party had to meet the 5% vote test every two years. In 1999 the legislature changed the law to say a party only had to meet the vote test every other election. Instantly the Reform Party was back on the ballot.

5. Michigan 2002. The Libertarian, Natural Law, and U.S. Taxpayers Parties went off the ballot in 2000 because they hadn’t polled 1% of the winning candidate for Secretary of State’s vote for their presidential nominees. The law said a party needed to meet the vote test for their nominee who was running for the top-most office on the ballot, which of course was President. But in 2002 the legislature changed the vote test, so it could be met by any one of the party’s nominees for any statewide office. Instantly the three parties were back on the ballot.

5. Montana 1990. The Libertarian Party went off the ballot in November because it hadn’t polled 5% of the winning candidate’s vote for any of its nominees. In 1991 the legislature changed the law to say a party only had to meet the vote test every other election. Instantly the Libertarian Party was back on the ballot.

6. North Dakota 1996. The Reform Party went off the ballot because it hadn’t polled 5% for Governor. In 1997 the legislature eased the vote test to say it could be met by either a party’s gubernatorial or presidential nominee. The Reform Party had polled over 5% for president in 1996. Instantly the Reform Party was back on the ballot.

7. Virginia 1990. The Democratic Party went off the ballot because it hadn’t polled 10% for U.S. Senate in 1990. U.S. Senate had been the only statewide office on the ballot. The Democrats hadn’t run a nominee for U.S. Senate in 1990. In 1991 the legislature, in special session, changed the vote test to say it could be met at either of the last two statewide elections. Instantly the Democratic Party was back on the ballot.

Even though they are no precedents from Ohio, this uncontradicted list of precedents from other states is convincing evidence that when a ballot access law is eased, but the new law doesn’t take effect until after the old law had done harm to a particular party, as soon as the new easier law goes into effect, the beneficial effects do take effect.