On May 22, a 3-judge U.S. District Court heard the Alabama redistricting case for U.S. House. See this story. Allen v Milligan, n.d., 2:21cv-1530. According to the story, the state says if it loses, he will go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
UPDATE: see this story.
On May 22, Chris Getty, an independent candidate for U.S. House in Illinois, submitted almost 20,000 signatures to meet a requirement of 10,816. See this story. He is running in the 4th district, where the incumbent Democrat did not run for re-election, but he didn’t tell anyone he wasn’t running for re-election except that he tipped off his campaign manager. So she submitted a primary petition and became the Democratic nominee by default. If other Democrats had known the incumbent wasn’t running for re-election, there would have been many Democrats running for the seat.
Getty is personally a Democrat, but Illinois does not have registration by party.
On May 22, the California Secretary of State posted a list of declared write-in candidates for the June 2 primary. See it here.
There are eight Assembly districts in which only one person qualified to be on the primary ballot. Among them, no one filed as a write-in in the 4th, 8th, 22nd 0r 32nd districts. If anyone had filed as a write-in in any of those districts, and then received at least one write-in, that person would have been on the general election ballot.
In the 17th district in San Francisco, three write-ins filed, a Republican, a Libertarian, and a Peace & Freedom Party member. Whichever of these three gets the most write-ins will be on the November ballot.
In the 63rd district, a Peace & Freedom member is the only write-in, and he will be on the November ballot assuming he gets at least one write-in.
In the 54th and 61st districts, a Republican filed as a write-in.
On May 5, Ohio held its primaries. In Lucas County, six candidates polled enough write-ins to be deemed nominated, including one Libertarian. See this story.
On May 22, U.S. District Court Judge Zahid Quraishi ruled that the plaintiffs in Kim v Hanlon, 3:24cv-1098, have standing to continue arguing that the old New Jersey discriminatory primary ballot access format is unconstitutional. The judge had already enjoined it in 2024, and the legislature had improved the primary ballot format in 2025. But, the new law still has flaws that the plaintiffs object to. The state had tried to get the case dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiffs lack standing, but the new ruling says the candidates still do have standing, because they have said they expect to run in future primaries. Here is the order.
