A federal lawsuit against the new Wisconsin ban on out-of-state circulators is pending in U.S. District Court. The Wisconsin legislature has asked to intervene in the case in support of the law, but the judge has not yet ruled on whether to allow that. The deadline for the brief of the state is due June 4. The plaintiffs are not seeking injunctive relief but they are seeking to have the law declared unconstitutional. Americans for Citizen Voting PAC v Wolfe, e.d., 2:26cv-786.
On May 21, a 3-judge Tennessee State Chancery Court heard arguments in NAACP State Conference v Tennessee, a case over the legality of the new U.S. House district boundaries. See this story.
On May 21, the Michigan Common Sense Party and the Michigan Libertarian Party filed a lawsuit in state court against the state’s ban on fusion. The case is filed in the Court of Claims. Michigan Common Sense Party v Benson, 26-000106-MZ. The lawsuit depends on the state constitution. There are now cases in four states against the ban on two parties jointly nominating the same candidate. The others are Wisconsin, Kansas, and New Jersey.
On the same day, the same plaintiffs filed an almost identical case in the Circuit Court of Ingham County. It has the same name. Here is the filing.
The Michigan Common Sense Party intends to petition for party status. The petition deadline is July 16. See this story. The party’s leadership includes a former state executive director of the Republican Party.
U.S. DISTRICT COURT MOSTLY UPHOLDS CALIFORNIA TOP-TWO, BUT KEEPS CASE ALIVE ON TWO POINTS
On April 13, U.S. District Court Judge Maxine Chesney mostly upheld California’s top-two system as it affects minor parties. But, she wrote that two aspects of the law are perhaps unconstitutional, and she is permitting further activity in the case for those two points. Those two issues are: (1) members of unqualified parties can’t have their party labels on the primary ballot, whereas members of qualified parties may have their party label; and (2) the top-two system in presidential years requires all candidates to file in December of the year before the election, thus freezing the status quo during the election year itself.
The California top-two system operates differently in presidential years than it does in midterm years. In presidential years, the congressional and state office primary is in the first week in March; in midterm years it is in June. So, the filing deadlines are far more onerous in presidential years.
The case is Peace and Freedom Party v Weber, n.d., 3:24cv-8308. The plaintiff political parties are the American Solidarity, Green, Libertarian, and Peace & Freedom Parties.
Judge Chesney said that the latter three parties already lost in the State Court of Appeals in Rubin v Padilla in 2015, and therefore they can’t relitigate the basic point about top-two. But the American Solidarity Party had not been in the earlier case, so Judge Chesney had to make a decision about the merits.
Disappointingly, all she said to uphold top-two is that the U.S. Supreme Court had already upheld it, inside the last few pages of its 2000 decision California Democratic Party v Jones.
