Even though Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene has already gone through the Georgia administrative procedure to determine if she is qualified to run for re-election, she is appealing the U.S. District Court order that forced her to go through that process. The result of the process was that she was found qualified.
The Fourth Circuit case is 22-11299. Her opening brief is due later in May. The oral argument will probably be in early August.
As reported previously, on March 17, the Indiana Green Party filed a federal lawsuit over the large number of signatures needed for the nominees of unqualified parties to get on the ballot. Indiana Green Party v Sullivan, s.d., 1:22cv-518. No statewide minor party or independent candidate petition has succeeded in Indiana since 2000. Indiana is one of only four states in which Ralph Nader never appeared on the ballot. The other three, Georgia, Oklahoma, and North Carolina, have since Nader last ran eased their procedures for presidential candidates, if not for all office.
The Indiana case is getting a slow start, because the state has twice asked for a delay in responding. The original response was due April 13, but now it is due May 18.
Missouri is one of nineteen states in which the voter registration form does not ask about party membership. On May 12, the Missouri legislature passed HB 1878, a very long election law bill. It has a provision for adding a question about party membership on the form. The applicant could only choose a qualified party or unaffiliated status. There is no provision for a blank line, which could be used by an applicant to indicate membership in an unqualified party.
Missouri has an open primary, in which any voter is free to choose any party’s primary ballot. HB 1878 does not change that. Therefore, the party membership question on the form has no practical effect. Arkansas also has a question about party membership on its voter registration form, and likewise the Arkansas question has no practical effect.
During the last fifty years, other states that have added a party membership question to the registration form are Idaho, Rhode Island, and Utah. There are no examples of any state that had the question, and then eliminated it. Thanks to Ken Bush for the news about the Missouri bill.
On May 12, the South Carolina legislature passed SB 108, which bans fusion. “Fusion” means the ability of two parties to nominate the same candidate. BAN had earlier thought this idea had failed. But the ban on fusion had been transferred out of HB 4919 (a bill that did not pass) and into another bill, SB 108.
Assuming the Governor signs it, that will leave only two states with disaggregated fusion, New York and Connecticut. “Disaggregated fusion” means the candidate is listed twice on the ballot, once under each party label. That gives the voters the ability to decide which party label they prefer.
On May 12, U.S. District Court Waverly Crenshaw, an Obama appointee, issued an order in Newsom v Golden, m.d., 3:22cv-318. The issue was action by the Tennessee Republican Party to keep Robby Starbuck Newsom off the August 2022 Republican primary ballot as a candidate for U.S. House, 5th district. The party has a bylaw saying no one can run in its primary who has not voted in three of the last four Republican primaries. Newsom couldn’t comply with that rule because he hadn’t lived in Tennessee long enough.
The order says that Newsom is guilty of laches, because he was barred from the ballot on April 19 but he didn’t sue until May 2. It also suggests that parties have a freedom of association to control who runs in its primaries. The order acknowledges the precedents that strike down laws that add to the constitutional qualifications, but finds that the issue is not clear-cut. Therefore, because injunctions can only be issued when it is clear the moving party is very likely to win the case eventually, relief was denied.
