On May 11, a Florida state trial court invalidated the U.S. House districts under the State Constitution. See this story.
8
On May 11, a New York state trial court said that the petitioning period for independent candidates, and the nominees of unqualified parties, for U.S. House and State Senate, will be from May 21 through July 5. Harkenrider v Hochul, Steuben County Supreme Court, E2022-0116cv.
The period is only 45 days, and starts the day after the new boundaries will have been released. The primary for U.S. House and State Senate will be August 23. There seems to be no reason why the independent petitions couldn’t be due on August 23, except for the New York habit that the petitioning period is quite short.
See the order here. The order also sets out procedures for primary candidates for U.S. House and State Senate. Thanks to Joe Burns for the link.
The order has no relevance to statewide petitions. However the statewide petitions need 500 signatures from each of half the U.S. House districts. It is very unjust to retain those distribution requirements and yet keep the statewide petition deadlines on May 31.
Frontloading HQ has this analysis of whether the Iowa Democratic Party can retain its status as the first state Democratic Party to select delegates to the national convention.
On May 10, Nebraska held primaries for four parties: Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, and Legal Marijuana Now. Here is a link to the statewide primary returns. At least 1,824 voters chose a Libertarian primary ballot. At least 863 voters chose a Legal Marijuana Now primary ballot.
In 2018, when the Libertarian Party was the only qualified third party, 1,269 voters chose the Libertarian primary ballot.
Nebraska has partisan registration. The Democratic, Libertarian, and Legal Marijuana Now Parties let independents vote in their primary for all partisan office.
On May 9, the Arizona Supreme Court issued a very short opinion in Hansen v Finchem, cv-22-0099. This is the case filed by voters who want to challenge the qualifications of two sitting members of Congress, and a state legislator, over the “insurrection” language in the Fourteenth Amendment.
The decision says, “By its terms, the statute’s scope is limited to challenges based upon ‘qualifications…as prescribed by law’ and does not include the Disqualification Clause, a legal proscription from holding office.” This seems to say that challenges can only be brought against candidates who don’t meet state laws (as opposed to federal laws) on qualifications. Arizona state law sets out age qualifications for candidates for congress, but doesn’t mention insurrection.
The result thus agrees with the decision of the lower state court, although the reasoning is different from the lower court’s reasoning. Thanks to Thomas Jones for this news.