THREE STATES EASE BALLOT ACCESS FOR U.S. HOUSE FOR 2026 ONLY
During May, three states eased ballot access for minor party and independent candidates for U.S. House for 2026 only. The improvements were most striking in Louisiana. These temporary changes were made because the states had decided to redraw their U.S. House district boundaries, and therefore it would have been obviously unfair to force petitioning candidates to follow the normal rules when the districts had changed so late in the season.
The late legislative decisions to draw new districts were motivated by the U.S. Supreme Court decision Louisiana v Callais, 24-109, which was handed down on April 29. It said states no longer need to follow old U.S. Supreme Court precedents (interpreting the Voting Rights Act) that required Black-majority congressional districts if it was feasible to create them and if the state had a history of racially polarized voting.
Florida: on May 4, Governor Rick DeSantis signed HB 1D, which redrew the districts. Florida law already said that in years of redistricting, the petition in lieu of filing fee becomes much easier. Usually the requirement is approximately 4,800 signatures, and all the signatures must come from inside the district. But in years following redistricting, the signatures can be collected anywhere in the state. This year the requirement in each district is 2,564 signatures. The bill did not change the deadline, which was May 11. However, the expectation that Florida would draw new districts had been widely shared for months, even before the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, so an alert candidate could have been using the easier procedure for the last several months.
When filing closed, there were seven minor party candidates for U.S. House on in Florida, the most minor party candidates for U.S. House in Florida since 1912. They include three Libertarians (the most ever for that party in Florida), two Independent Party members, one Forward Party member, and one member of the Men Going Their Own Way Party. Those last three parties had never before had any U.S. House candidates on the ballot in Florida.
Louisiana: on May 14, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed HB 842. It says that any candidate for U.S. House can get on the November ballot if he or she files a $1,500 filing fee. The deadline to file is August 7. The petition in lieu of the fee is 250 signatures, and it can be cirulated anywhere in the state. Candidates may have a ballot label showing the party if the party is a qualified party. The qualified parties are Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, and Green.
Before this bill passed, the law required anyone who wasn’t a Republican or a Democrat to submit a petition of 750 signatures by February 13. Registered Republicans and Democrats could not sign. No minor party or independent candidate for Congress qualified, so if the law hadn’t changed, Louisiana would have had a Democratic-Republican monopoly for all U.S. House races for the first time since 2004.
Tennessee: on May 7, Governor Bill Lee signed HB 7001. It moves the independent candidate petition deadline for U.S. House from March 10 to May 15. It also says a signature is valid if the voter lives anywhere in a county that is partially in the district.
Independent candidates only need 25 signatures, so even though the deadline continues to be early, the extension did allow candidates to have a meaningful chance to qualify.
In February of this year, Virginia had also eased ballot access for minor party and independent candidates for U.S. House, by moving the petition deadline from June 16 to August 4, for 2026 only. At the time the bill passed, the legislature expected to draw new districts. In the end, the old districts remained unchanged, but the deadline improvement still stands. The number of signatures remains 1,000.
Lawsuits are pending in Florida, Louisiana, and Tennessee to cancel the new districts, but even if they succeed, the ballot access improvements will still apply for the 2026 election.
ALABAMA DID NOT EASE ACCESS, EXCEPT TO EXTEND DEADLINE
Unlike the three states mentioned above, the Alabama legislature drew new districts and did not ease petitioning, except to move the petition deadline from May 19 to August 11 (the later deadline only applies to four of the districts, the 1st, 2nd, 6th, and 7th). Yet court precedents say that Alabama should have reduced the number of signatures to account for shrinking the petitioning period from 18 months to approximately 70 days.
On May 26, a 3-judge U.S. District Court upset the new districts. Singleton v Allen, n.d.,2:21cv-1291. The districts remain in doubt because the U.S. Supreme Court may or may not reverse the district court. Thus, it is still not possible for any petitioning to occur.
ARIZONA WIN
On May 4, the Arizona Supreme Court issued an opinion in Beckman v Lytle, cv-26-0124. It keeps Hugh Lytle on the primary ballot of the No Labels Party. He is running for Governor. His ballot position had been challenged because he put his business address on his primary petition instead of his home address.
The decision says that even though Lytle did not follow the law, he should still remain on the ballot because his transgression did not do any harm. The decision says that both the business address and the home address are in the same county. It says, “Candidate’s use of the business address in the same city and county in which he resides was unlikely to confuse or mislead the thousands of people who signed Candidate’s nomination petitions for statewide office…There is nothing in the record to suggest that Candidate is not so qualified for statewide office.” It says the decision might have been different if he had been running for the legislature, an office for which the candidate must reside in the district.
This decision is unusual. Courts in most states typically remove candidates from the ballot if they make even the tiniest error on their paperwork.
The decision is in sharp contrast to the decision of the New York state courts, which in 2024 removed Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. from the ballot as an independent presidential candidate because he had listed the residence address on his petitions that matched his voter registration record, and yet he didn’t really reside there, although he had in the past. Kennedy had spent $1,000,000 on his New York petition, and New York had been the only state where he failed to qualify. He asked the U.S. Supreme Court for relief, but that Court denied any relief. Injunctive relief was denied in Team Kennedy v Berger, 24A285 in 2024, and declaratory relief was denied in Kennedy v Cartwright, 24-646, in 2025.
HUGE LOSS FOR FLORIDA INITIATIVES
On April 30, U.S. District Court Judge Mark E. Walker, an Obama appointee, upheld many severe restrictions on Florida initiatives. Florida Decides Healthcare, n.d., 4:25cv-211.
He upheld the new ban on out-of-state circulators, without even mentioning any of the contrary precedents from other states. Such opinions had been issued in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
He upheld the law allowing the state to levy a $50,000 fine on a petitioning group, if it submits even one petition sheet in which the circulator didn’t live in Florida.
He upheld the law that requires circulators to be U.S. citizens, and which also bans ex-felons if they have not had their voting rights restored. He upheld the law that says it is a felony if the circulator fills in any missing information. He upheld the law that requires all petitioners to register with the Secretary of State before starting to work.
The judge did not seem enthusiastic about his ruling. He wrote, “Indeed, before the Legislature enacted the challenged legislation at issue in this case, the chances of successfully proposing and passing a statewide ballot initiative was an uphill battle unless a sponsor was able to marshal enormous resources and put them to work in a massive statewide campaign.”
Judge Walker had previously enjoined the ban on out-of-state circulators, but then the Eleventh Circuit had reversed him in a 2-1 vote.
The plaintiffs don’t plan to appeal, and will pin their hopes for future initiatives by planning websites that will let voters electronically request blank initiative forms.
NEW JERSEY PROCEDURAL WIN
On May 22, U.S. District Court Judge Zahid Quraishi, a Biden appointee, ruled that the plaintiffs in the New Jersey primary ballot format lawsuit may keep their case alive. They are trying to obtain a ruling that the discriminatory primary ballot format is unconstitutional. Kim v Hanlon, 3:24cv-1098.
The case won injunctive relief in 2024. The legislature had then improved the ballot format, but it still treats some candidates better than others.
If the format can be held unconstitutional, that would be a very useful precedent that the general election ballot format is also unconstitutional. In most counties in the general election, the Democratic and Republican parties have their own party column, and every other candidate is squeezed into a column headed by “Nomination by Petition”.
ILLINOIS LOSS
On May 11, U.S. District Court Judge Sara Darrow, an Obama appointee, refused to enjoin the 5% petition requirement for minor party and independent candidates for U.S. House. Flowers v Illinois State Board of Elections, c.d., 4:26cv-4062.
She based her ruling on the U.S. Supreme Court decision Jenness v Fortson, which upheld Georgia’s 5% petition in 1971. She didn’t mention that in 1974, that Court said “there is no litmus test” to determine if petition requirements are too high, and that courts should examine how often the law had been successfully used.
Judge Darrow also cited American Party of Texas v White, and said that decision also upheld petitions of 3% and 5%. But she did not say that in that 1974 Texas case, the 3% and 5% petitions only applied to district offices, and that Texas also set a cap of 500 signatures on all district petitions.
She also implied that the U.S. Supreme Court had never struck down a petition requirement under 5%, without mentioning that the Court did strike down a petition requirement of 2% in Illiinois State Board of Elections v Socialist Workers Party in 1979, and that the Court did so again in 1992 in Norman v Reed.
The case is still alive and the plaintiff, an independent candidate, will continue to seek declaratory relief.
OTHER LAWSUIT NEWS
California: on May 11, U.S. District Court Judge William B. Shubb, a Bush Sr. appointee, refused to put Butch Ware on the June 2 primary ballot. Ware, the Green Party candidate for Governor, had been kept off the ballot because the Secretary of state believed there were flaws in the copies of his tax returns. The case is not over and Ware will continue to press his argument that the law requiring gubernatorial candidates to submit their tax reteurns is unconstitutional. He is supported by an amicus curiae brief from the National Taxpayers Union Foundation.
Colorado: on May 15, the League of Women Voters filed a lawsuit against a new law that says when a legislator resigns or dies, there will be a special election to replace that legislator, but only registered members of the ex-legislator’s party can vote. LWV of Colorado v Griswold, 1:26cv-2103. The case is assigned to a magistrate.
Michigan: on May 21, the Common Sense Party (which is not on the ballot) and the Libertarian Party (which is on the ballot) filed two lawsuits in state court, seeking to knock out the ban on fusion. One case is in the State Court of Claims and the other is in Ingham County Circuit Court. Both cases are named Michigan Common Sense Party v Benson. The claim is based on the state constitution. Similar cases are pending in Kansas, New Jersey, and Wisconsin.
Virgin Islands: on May 14, a U.S. District Court Judge temporarily working in the Virgin Islands issued an injunction against election practices that require Democratic candidates to be approved by the Democratic Party in order to get on the Democratic primary ballot. Democratic Party of the Virgin Islands v Election System of the Virgin Islands, 1:26cv-8.
Wisconsin: on May 12, U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Adelman, a Clinton appointee, refused to issue a Temporary Restraining Order against the new law that bans out-of-state circulators. Americans for Citizen Voting PAC v Wolfe, e.d., 2:26cv-786. He said the plaintiffs had waited a month before filing their lawsuit. He also said the Pursell Principle, a fuzzy doctrine from the U.S. Supreme Court, warns federal courts not to make election law changes too close to the date of any election. The plaintiffs will continue to seek declaratory relief. Wisconsin is in the 7th circuit, and in 2000, the 7th circuit struck down the Illinois ban on out-of-state circulators.
CALIFORNIA INITIATIVES TO ALTER PRIMARY SYSTEM
On May 8, Steven Maviglio filed paperwork with the California Secretary of State to circulate an initiative to repeal the top-two system. Maviglio is a former Chief of Staff to a former Democratic Governor, and a political consultant. The idea for his initiative is supported by Rusty Hicks, the state chair of the California Democratic Party.
The initiative won’t start to circulate immediately and would aim to be on the November 2028 ballot.
Another initiative, to change California to a top-four system using Ranked Choice Voting, will probably also begin to circulate in a few months. If both initiatives passed, the one with the most popular votes would take precedence over the other initiative.
PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY NEWS
Missouri: on May 15, the legislature adjourned without having passed any bill to restore presidential primaries.
Rhode Island: on April 30, the House unanimously passed HB 7090, which moves the presidential primary from late April to early March. The bill has no effect on deadlines for the general election.
BALLOT ACCESS BILLS
Alaska: on May 20, the legislature adjourned without having passed HB 4, which would have restored write-in space on the presidential general election ballot. The space had been removed when Alaska adopted the top-four primary.
Hawaii: on May 8, the legislature adjourned without having passed HB 1716, the bill to make it easier for a party to remain on the ballot. The bill had passed both houses of the legislature, but the versions in each house did not match. The House had appointed members to a conference committee to agree on a single version, but the Senate did not make any appointments.
DEMOCRATIC PARTY RELEASES REPORT OF 2024 ELECTION
On May 21, the chair of the Democratic National Committee finally released the 2025 report the party had commissioned to understand why the party had lost the 2024 presidential election. But the report did not mention anything about the party’s decision to challenge the ballot access petitions submitted by independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
WHICH STATES HAVE MOST OFTEN DONE MID-DECADE DISTRICTING?
The chart below shows which states have made changes to their U.S. House district boundaries other than in years following a census.
| 64 | 66 | 68 | 84 | 96 | 98 | 00 | 04 | 06 | 14 | 16 | 18 | 20 | 24 | 26 | Total | |
| Ala | X | X | X | ? | ? | |||||||||||
| Alas | 0 | |||||||||||||||
| Ariz | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Ark | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Cal | X | X | 2 | |||||||||||||
| Colo | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Ct | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Del | 0 | |||||||||||||||
| Fla | X | X | X | ? | ? | |||||||||||
| Ga | X | X | X | 3 | ||||||||||||
| Hi | 0 | |||||||||||||||
| Id | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Ill | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Ind | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Iowa | 0 | |||||||||||||||
| Kan | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Ky | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| La | X | X | X | X | ? | ? | ||||||||||
| Maine | 0 | |||||||||||||||
| Md | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Mass | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Mich | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Minn | 0 | |||||||||||||||
| Miss | X | X | 2 | |||||||||||||
| Mo | X | X | 2 | |||||||||||||
| Mont | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Neb | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Nev | 0 | |||||||||||||||
| N H | 0 | |||||||||||||||
| N Jer | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| N Mex | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| N York | X | X | 2 | |||||||||||||
| No C | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 7 | ||||||||
| No D | 0 | |||||||||||||||
| Ohio | X | X | X | 3 | ||||||||||||
| Okla | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Ore | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Penn | X | X | 2 | |||||||||||||
| R I | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| So C | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| So D | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Tenn | X | ? | ? | |||||||||||||
| Tex Te |
X | X | X | X | X | X | 6 | |||||||||
| Utah | X |
|
X | 2 | ||||||||||||
| Vt | 0 | |||||||||||||||
| Va | X | X | 2 | |||||||||||||
| Wash | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| W Va | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Wis | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Wyo | 0 | |||||||||||||||
| TOTAL | 7 | 17 | 18 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | ? | ? |
2026 PETITIONING FOR STATEWIDE OFFICES
| Party sigs | Indp sigs | LIB’T | GREEN | CONSTIT | FORWRD | Pty due | Indp due | |
| Alabama | 42,459 | 42,459 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | May 19 | May 19 |
| Alaska | (reg) 5,000 | #Pay fee | already on | *1,456 | *754 | 0 | May 4 | June 1 |
| Arizona | 34,127 | #44,539 | already on | already on | too late | too late | *Nv 14, 25 | May 6 |
| Arkansas | 10,000 | 10,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | April 28 | *May 1 |
| Calif. | (reg) *76,204 | 65 | already on | already on | too late | too late | Dec 31 25 | March 6 |
| Colorado | 10,000 | #8,000 | already on | already on | already on | already on | Jan 9 | July 9 |
| Conn. | no procedure | #7,500 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – – | Aug 10 |
| Del. | (reg) 780 | 7,800 | already on | *774 | *226 | 2 | Aug 25 | July 15 |
| D.C. | no procedure | #3,000 | *0 | already on | *0 | *0 | – – | Aug 5 |
| Florida | be organized | 0 | already on | already on | already on | already on | Apr 24 | Apr 24 |
| Georgia | 72,680 | #70,083 | 500 | 0 | 0 | 0 | July 14 | July 14 |
| Hawaii | 861 | 25 | already on | already on | too late | too late | Feb 20 | June 2 |
| Idaho | 18,349 | 1,000 | already on | 0 | already on | 0 | Aug 30 | March 21 |
| Illinois | no procedure | #25,000 | *too late | *finished | *too late | *too late | – – | May 25 |
| Indiana | no procedure | #36,944 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | – – | June 30 |
| Iowa | no procedure | #3,500 | *finished | 0 | 0 | 0 | – – | June 2 |
| Kansas | 20,180 | 5,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | June 1 | Aug 3 |
| Kentucky | no procedure | #5,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – – | Aug 11 |
| Louisiana | 1,000 + 5,000 | 5,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Feb 13 | Feb 13 |
| Maine | (reg) 5,000 | #4,000 | already on | already on | 0 | 0 | Jan 2 | June 1 |
| Maryld. | 10,000 | 10,000 | 0 | already on | 0 | 0 | July 1 | Aug 3 |
| Mass. | (reg) 45, 500 | #10,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Feb. 1 | July 28 |
| Michigan | 44,618 | 12,000 | already on | already on | already on | 0 | July 16 | July 16 |
| Minn. | 163,621 | #2,000 | *1,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | May 2 | June 2 |
| Miss. | be organized | 1,000 | already on | already on | already on | 0 | *Feb 2 | Feb. 2 |
| Missouri | 10,000 | 10,000 | already on | 0 | 200 | 0 | Muly 27 | July 27 |
| Montana | 5,000 | #12,788 | already on | *too late | *too late | *too late | March 2 | May 26 |
| Nebraska | 6,726 | 4,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Aug 3 | Sept 1 |
| Nevada | 14,271 | 250 | already on | *too late | already on | *too late | May 12 | May 12 |
| N.Hamp | 24,375 | #3,000 | *100 | 0 | *400 | *0 | Aug 4 | Aug 4 |
| N Jersey | no procedure | #2,000 | *finished | *finished | 0 | 0 | – – | June 2 |
| N Mex | 3,560 +14,246 | 14,246 | already on | already on | 0 | *already on | June 25 | June 25 |
| N York | no procedure | #45,000 | *too late | *too late | *too late | *too late | – – | May 26 |
| No Caro | *14,310 | 83,874 | already on | already on | *0 | *0 | May 17 | March 3 |
| No Dak | 7,000 | 1,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | April 6 | Aug 31 |
| Ohio | 57,678 | 5,000 | already on | 0 | 0 | 3,000 | July 1 | May 4 |
| Okla | 34,599 | 0 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | March 2 | April 10 |
| Oregon | 29,294 | 22,445 | already on | already on | already on | 0 | Aug 11 | Aug 11 |
| Penn. | no procedure | #5,000 | *500 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – – | Aug 3 |
| R.I. | *25,670 | #1,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Aug 3 | July 10 |
| So.Car. | 10,000 | 10,000 | already on | already on | already on | already on | May 3 | July 15 |
| So.Dak. | 3,502 | 3,502 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | July 1 | April 28 |
| Tenn | 43,498 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Aug 5 | *March 10 |
| Texas | 81,030 | 81,030 | already on | already on | *too late | *too late | May 26 | *May 11 |
| Utah | 2,000 | #1,000 | already on | already on | already on | already on | Nv 30 ‘25 | June 15 |
| Vermont | be organized | #500 | already on | 0 | 0 | 0 | Dec 31 ‘25 | Aug 6 |
| Virginia | no procedure | #10,000 | *0 | *0 | *0 | *0 | — | June 16 |
| Wash. | no procedure | #0 | *too late | *too late | *too late | *too late | – – | May 8 |
| W.Va. | no procedure | #7,478 | already on | already on | already on | 0 | – – | Aug 3 |
| Wisc. | 10,000 | #2,000 | already on | already on | already on | *too late | April 1 | June 1 |
| Wyoming | 5,201 | 5,201 | already on | 0 | already on | 0 | June 1 | Aug 24 |
| #ON | 31 | 18 | 12 | 5 |
* means change since May 1, 2026 B,A,N.
THREE ILLINOIS INDEPENDENTS SUBMITS ALMOST 18,000 SIGNATURES EACH IN U.S. HOUSE RACE
Between May 22 and 26, three independent candidates each submitted almost 18,000 signatures to qualify for U.S. House in the Fourth District of Illinois. All three actually are Democrats but they used the independent procedure. The incumbent Democrat in this Chicago district, Jesus “Chuy” Garcia, is not running for reelection. But he did not reveal that he was not running for reelection until the deadline for filing for the primary. His chief of staff, one of the few individuals who did know, filed her own petition. This caused outrage, because if the public had known that Garcia was not running for re-election, many Democrats would have filed.
The petition requirement is 10,816. If any of the petitions is valid, the candidate will have overcome the fourth-highest petition requirement for U.S. House that has ever been used succesfully. The only petitioning U.S. House candidates who ever overcame tougher requirements were Wendall Fant in North Carolina in 2010 (16,929); Frazier Reams in Ohio in 1952 (12,919) and Jack Gargan in Florida in 1998 (12,141).
WEALTHY INDIVIDUAL OFFERS TO PAY $100,000 TO WHOMEVER CHOOSES THE BEST NAME FOR A NEW PARTY
John Morgan, a very wealthy attorney who lives in Orlando, Florida, wants to create a new political party. He is holding a contest for suggestions for the name of the new party. He will pay $100,000 to the individual who chooses the best party name.
PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT JUDGE BECOMES AN INDEPENDENT
On May 11, Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice David Wecht changed his registration from Democratic to independent. Pennsylvania elects its State Supreme Court Justices in partisan elections when there is no incumbent but uses retention elections otherwise. Wecht has been on the court since 2016. He said he changed his registration because he feels the Democratic party is becoming increasingly sympathetic to anti-semitism.
REFORM PARTY NO LONGER QUALIFIED IN FLORIDA
The Florida Reform Party has been removed from the ballot for failing to file campaign finance reports. Thus, the Reform Party, which attained great heights in the presidential election of 1996 and the Minnesota gubernatorial election of 1998, is no longer on the ballot in any state.
KANSAS NO LABELS PARTY INTENDS TO RUN CANDIDATES
The Kansas No Labels Party is planning to nominate candidates for federal and state office this year, even though the national No Labels Party ceased to be interested in such activity long ago. The only other state affiliate of No Labels with candidates this year is the Arizona party.
NORTH CAROLINA FORWARD PARTY
The North Carolina Forward Party has been petitioning for party status but has decided it won’t have enough signatures to qualify for the 2026 ballot. Instead, it will use its signatures for party status in 2027 and 2028. North Carolina has some partisan city elections in 2027.
NEW ONE STATE PARTIES ARE PETITIONING IN SEVERAL STATES
Newly formed one state parties are actively petitioning for 2026 ballot status in several states: the Lincoln Party in Indiana, the Common Sense Party in Michigan, and the United Party in Ohio.
MIKE DUGGAN, FORMER MAYOR OF DETROIT, DROPS INDEPENDENT BID FOR GOVERNOR
On May 21, Mike Duggan, former Mayor of Detroit, said he will discontinue his campaign to be elected Governor of Michigan as an independent. He said recent polls show that the Democratic Party is gaining in strength, and that he no longer thinks he could win. He had not yet completed his petition. He needed 12,000 signatures.