On May 4, initiative proponents filed this reply brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Schmitt v LaRose, 19-974.  This is the case over whether it violates the First Amendment for local election administrators to reject an initiative petition, even though it has enough valid signatures, if the administrators think the initiative, if passed, would be illegal or unconstitutional. The Sixth Circuit had ruled against the initiative proponents.  This is an Ohio case involving an initiative relating to marijuana.

On May 4, the Colorado Supreme Court, in an unsigned, short opinion, reversed the trial court and said candidates can’t be on the primary ballot this year unless they obtain the signatures required by the election code.  The opinion says the Court can’t do anything for the plaintiff candidate because it doesn’t have the power, and that only the legislature can help.  Griswold v Ferrigno Warren, 2020SA34.  Here is the opinion.

The effect of the decision is to remove both Michelle Warren and Lorena Garcia from the U.S. Senate primary ballot for the Democratic Party.  The only two candidates who will be on that ballot did not collect any signatures; they got on by showing substantial support at a state party meeting.

On May 4, the Democratic and Republican leaders of each house of the Connecticut legislature wrote a letter to U.S. District Court Judge Janet C. Hall, saying they might pass some legislation that would moot part of the Libertarian Party ballot access lawsuit and that they hope the judge will not rule until the legislature has a chance to act.  Libertarian Party of Connecticut v Merrill, 3:20cv-467.

The lawsuit was filed on April 4, and it is odd that the legislative leaders waited so long to write their letter.

Also on May 4, independent presidential candidate Kyle Kopitke asked to intervene in the case.