News stories are reporting that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer will retire at the end of the term, probably in June 2022 but possibly in July 2022.

Justice Breyer is the only member of the current court who has ever expressed any support for voting rights for minor party and independent candidates. In 2005, the last time a full decision of the U.S. Supreme Court mentioned ballot access for minor party and independent candidates and voters, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and Breyer wrote, “Although the State has a role to play in regulating elections, it is not a wholly independent or neutral arbiter. Rather, the State is itself controlled by the political party or parties in power, which presumably have an incentive to shape the rules of the electoral game to their own benefit…As such restrictions become more severe, and particularly where they have discriminatory effects, there is increasing cause for concern that those in power may be using electoral rules to erect barriers to electoral conpetition.”

Also, in 2004, Breyer voted to hear Ralph Nader’s ballot access case against Oregon. The Secretary of State of Oregon had rejected Nader, even though the county election officials had determined that Nader’s independent petition had enough valid signatures. The Secretary of State overrode that determination, because, he said, the page numbers of some petition sheets were incorrect. Breyer was the only justice who wanted to hear the Oregon case.

On January 24, a state trial court held a hearing in Dikeman v Scott, Harris County, 11th judicial district, 2019-76841. At the conclusion of the hearing the judge denied the state’s motion to lift the injunction against requiring minor party candidates to pay filing fees. Here is the one-page order. The state had prepared the order and had written that the Secretary of State’s motion is “granted.” But the judge lined out the words prepared by the state, and inserted, “Denied” in their place.

The state had argued that the injunction against the 2020 fees is obsolete because the legislature modified the filing fee law in 2021. The legislature in 2021 had made the fees even more severe. Whereas the original 2019 filing fee law appeared (vaguely) only to apply to nominees of convention parties, the 2021 law says the fees even apply to candidates who ask a convention for a nomination.

Texas does not require independent candidates to pay a filing fee. Traditionally, in Texas, only candidates running in a primary have ever been required to pay filing fees. Their purpose is to keep the primary ballot from being too crowded, because there is no petition needed for a candidate to get on a Texas primary ballot.

This is a Libertarian Party case. The Libertarian Party is now seeking declaratory relief against the fees, not only in this case, but in a parallel federal case that will be argued in February. Thanks to Jim Riley for this news and for the link.

According to this story, on January 25, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said he strongly disagrees with the January 24 decision striking down the new U.S. House district boundaries and he will appeal.