Pennsylvania Democrats Fail to Remove Pennsylvania Forward Party’s Only Legislative Candidate

Posted on by September 12, 2026
12

On August 26, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled that Chris Gambino should remain on the ballot as the Forward Party’s nominee for State Representative, 143rd district. See this story. Democrats had challenged his ballot position on the grounds that his ballot label, “Forward Independent”, is illegal. The Democratic challengers said that Gambino could not use that label because other candidates in other districts were on the ballot as “independent”, and therefore “independent” was reserved for those candidates.

The challengers have appealed to the State Supreme Court. See this story. Apparently the appeal is on whether Gambino had enough valid signatures.

This is believed to be the first instance at which Democrats have challenged the ballot access of any Forward Party nominee, anywhere in the nation. One wonders why Democrats feel that a Forward Party nominee on the ballot necessarily hurts the Democratic nominee.

New Mexico Secretary of State Files Brief in Tenth Circuit in Ballot Access Case

Posted on by September 11, 2026
6

On September 11, the New Mexico Secretary of State filed this brief in New Mexico Forward Party v Toulouse Oliver, 26-2145. This is the ballot access case in which the Forward Party challenges the law that requires one petition to qualify a new party, and then (after the new party nominates candidates by convention), each nominated candidate must submit his or her own petition.

The Secretary’s brief, in an attempt to show that New Mexico has reasonable ballot access laws for minor parties, points out that in the last ten years, candidates from the American Delta Party, the Constitution Party, and the Better for America Party have appeared on the ballot. But the brief does not say that these parties only appeared on the ballot for president. The law requiring nominee petitions does not apply to presidential candidates. so the fact that those three parties appeared does not relate to the nominee petition issue at all.

Toward the end of the brief, it mentions that the Attorney General yesterday filed an amicus brief on the side of the Forward Party. The Secretary’s brief asserts that the Attorney General’s brief merely duplicates the Forward Party’s brief, but that is not true. The Attorney General’s amicus brief points out that the nominee petitions aren’t required for presidential nominees, a very important point that is not in the Tenth Circuit Forward Party brief.

U.S. District Court Sets Hearing in Illinois Ballot Access Case

Posted on by September 11, 2026
2

U.S. District Court Judge Franklin Valderrama, a Trump appointee, will hear Sigcho-Lopez v Illinois State Board of Elections, n.d., 1:26cv-9156, on Wednesday, September 16, at 9:30 a.m. This is one of the cases that challenges the Illinois 5% petition for U.S. House independent candidates. The case had been filed on July 31 by Byron Sigcho-Lopez, an independent candidate for U.S. House in the 4th district in Chicago. Sigcho-Lopez is a Chicago city councilmember.

Texas Republican Party Tells Court That its Lawsuit to Obtain a Closed Primary for Itself is Now Stronger than Earlier

Posted on by September 11, 2026
14

On September 9, the Texas Republican Party informed the U.S. District Court that its lawsuit is now stronger than it was originally. The new filing points out that the state party recently passed a resolution in favor of a closed primary for itself. This is the lawsuit in which the Texas Republican Party argues that it has a First Amendment right to a closed primary if it wants one. Hunt v State of Texas, n.d., 2L25cv-200.

New Mexico Attorney General Files Amicus Curiae Brief in Tenth Circuit on the Side of Ballot Access for the Forward Party

Posted on by September 10, 2026
8

On September 10, the Attorney General of New Mexico, Raul Torrez, a Democrat, filed an amicus curiae in the Tenth Circuit in New Mexico Forward Party v Toulouse Oliver, 26-2145. The surprise is that he filed it on the side of the Forward Party, and argues that New Mexico’s ballot access laws for new and minor parties are so difficult that they are unconstitutional. Here is his brief.

I have been following constitutional ballot access cases for sixty years and I don’t believe that the Attorney General of any state has ever taken that position in any previous constitutional ballot access case. There have been many instances when a state consented that one of its ballot access laws was unconstitutional, but this is a contested case.