A U.S. District Court will hear arguments today (Wednesday October 7) in Craig v Simon, 0:20cv-2066. This is the case in which the Democratic Party nominee for U.S. House, 2nd district, is trying to overturn a state law that says the election for that seat should be postponed to February 9, 2021.

On October 6, the state chair of the Legal Marijuana Now Party, Tim Davis, filed a declaration in the case. It says the party nominated a replacement candidate on October 4, Paula Overby. The replacement is necessary because the Legal Marijuana Party Now’s original nominee died on September 21, which is the cause of the postponement of the election.

The Davis declaration points out that the Democratic Party nominee, the plaintiff, did not notify the Legal Marijuana Now Party that she had filed her lawsuit. It also points out that if the Democratic nominee wins the lawsuit, and the election for this seat is held on November 3, that the Legal Marijuana Now Party’s new nominee won’t be on the ballot.

As of 5:30 p.m. eastern time on Tuesday, October 6, the U.S. Supreme Court still has taken no action on the Maine Republican request for an injunction to stop ranked choice voting for president. The Republican request had been filed on October 2. Jones v Dunlap, 20A57.

On October 5, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Adams v Carney, 19-309. This is the case over the Delaware law that requires the Governor to appoint only members of parties that have at least 5% of the voter registration to judicial posts. The Family Court and the Court of Common Pleas are exempt from the law, but the more important state courts, including the State Supreme Court, are subject to it.

Most members of the U.S. Supreme Court certainly seemed to feel that the exclusion of independent voters, and members of minor parties, is troubling. But the plaintiff, who is a registered independent, may not win the case because of minor problems with his case. He had said that he would “consider and apply” for a judicial position if it were offered. It would have been better if he had no used the term “consider”. One justice said if he received an application from someone to be his law clerk, who used that phrase, the justice might feel the applicant hadn’t really made up his or her mind whether the job is desired or not. If the justices feel the plaintiff wasn’t forthright enough about wanting to be appointed to a judicial position, they may find he lacks standing.

The attorney for the state of Delaware also emphasized that the plaintiff said he wanted to be appointed any type of judge, yet he didn’t really seem to care about being appointed to one of the two low-levels of court in which the restriction doesn’t apply.

The justices asked some interesting hypotheticals. They wanted to know if Delaware could have a law requiring all judges to be registered independents. They wanted to know if the state could have a law saying the Governor could only appoint members of the largest party. They asked about a hypothetical law in which state court judges would be elected, but only Democrats and Republicans could run. The state conceded that would be unconstitutional.

The state justfies its ban on minor party members by assuming that all minor parties are “allied” with one particular major party. For example, the state seems to think everyone agrees that a Green would be ideologically identical to a Democrat. That assumption is grossly in error, not only for the Green Party, but also for other minor parties. It ignores the existence of the third-largest political party in Delaware, the Independent Party, which is a centrist party.