On February 10, the Second Circuit refused to enjoin the new New York definition of a qualified political party. SAM Party of New York v Kosinski, 20-3047. Here is the twenty-page opinion, which was written by Judge Michael H. Park, a Trump appointee. It is also signed by Judge Robert D. Sack, a Clinton appointee, and Steven J. Menashi, a Trump appointee.

The new definition requires a party to poll 2% of the presidential vote to retain its qualified status. The decision says there are two state interests in the new, more difficult requirement: (1) to improve the chances that the winner will get a majority of the popular vote; (2) to save money, because the state now has public funding for candidates for state office, although it doesn’t start until 2024.

Both justifications are utterly without merit. Point one could be solved if the state used ranked choice voting. Point two is easily rebutted by pointing out that the Second Circuit already ruled in a Connecticut case that states need not provide public funding to minor parties or independent candidates.

The decision falsely claims that removing a party’s qualified status is not a severe burden, because its nominees can use the independent petition. But the decision utterly ignores the fact that New York is one of only eleven states in which an unqualified party cannot regain its status as a qualified party in advance of any particular election. Because New York has no means for a group to become a qualified party in advance of an election, it must have separate petitions for each of its district nominees, plus a separate petition for its statewide nominees. For an unqualified party to run a full slate of U.S. House candidates alone would take 94,500 signatures; for a full slate for State Senate, 186,000 signatures; for a full slate for Assembly, 225,000 signatures; for a statewide slate, 45,000. That totals 550,500 signatures, and that doesn’t even include city and county office, nor Justice of the Supreme Court.

The decision does not mention that these independent petitions must be completed within a six-week period, due in May of election years.

The decision claims that other courts have upheld similar severe definitions of a qualified party, but all of the precedents listed in the decision are from states with a procedure for a group to transform itself into a qualified party in advance of any particular election.

The decision says that because president is the only statewide office always on the ballot in presidential years, the state needs to make the presidential vote part of the definition of a qualified party, if it wants to have updated information about the strength of parties every election. This is false; if the judges were familiar with the laws of other states, they could see that other states solve this problem by using registration data, which Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, and Oregon use. Or New York could measure a party’s vitality by noting how many nominees it runs, as Idaho, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana do. Thanks to Frank Morano for this sad news.

On February 9, the Maricopa County Libertarian Party sued Maricopa County election officials over their refusal to permit political parties to have observers at the forensic audit of election equipment that began earlier this month. The county invited many organizations to watch, including the League of Women Voters, but it did not invite representatives of any political party. Arizona election law generally recognizes the right of political parties to send observers to any such activities. Maricopa County Libertarian Party v Maricopa County, Superior Court, cv2021-2205.