On February 9, the California Secretary of State released new registration data. It shows that the Common Sense Party has 30,882 registrants. Although that is a big increase for the party since the last tally, it is not enough to qualify. The party had 17,322 registrants at the previous tally, which was as of August 31, 2021. The requirement appears to be 72,618, although the Common Sense Party believes the requirement is 55,601.

Here is a link to the Secretary’s Report of Registration.

Percentages for the qualified parties are: Democratic 46.70%; Republican 23.95%; American Independent 3.32%; Libertarian 1.00%; Peace & Freedom .51%; Green .41%. The percentage of voters in unqualified parties, unknown, and independent, combined, is 24.10%.

At the last tally, in August 2021, the percentages were: Democratic 46.54%; Republican 24.02%; American Independent 3.24%; Libertarian .97%; Peace & Freedom .50%; Green .40%; independent plus unknown and unqualified parties, 24.31%. The only categories that declined were Republican and independent-miscellaneous.

On February 8, the Missouri Supreme Court struck down a 1997 law that shortened the amount of time for circulation of a statewide referendum petition. No Bans on Choice v Ashcroft, SC98879. Here is the opinion. The vote is 5-2.

Before 1997, referendum petitions (which are used to block a new law just passed by the legislature) had at least 90 days to circulate. But in 1997, the legislature passed a law saying the petition couldn’t circulate until the Attorney General and the Secretary of state had chosen the “official ballot title”. In 2019, because of various delays caused by those state officials, the plaintiffs were left with only 14 days to circulate their petition, which required approximately 100,000 valid signatures. The lower court struck down the restriction on the starting date, and now the State Supreme Court has affirmed it. Thanks to Ken Bush for this news.

On February 7, the North Carolina State Board of Elections filed this brief in Cawthorn v Circosta, e.d., 5:22cv-50. This is the case filed by Congressman Madison Cawthorn, to stop the Board from adjudicating whether he meets the Constitutional qualifications to run for re-election. The challenge to him is based on the 14th Amendment, section 3, which bars anyone who took an oath to the constitution, and then engages in insurrection.

The most interesting part of the brief starts on page 25, and argues that states can judge the qualifications of congressional candidates, and can keep unqualified candidates off the ballot. Earlier parts of the brief argue procedural problems, such as arguing that Congressman Cawthorn hasn’t been injured unless the challenge succeeds, so the case is premature.