The Salem News has this editorial, urging a cut in the number of signatures needed to get on primary ballots in Massachusetts.
Reply
The most important office on the ballot in Wisconsin on April 7 was the State Supreme Court race run-off. Even though it is technically non-partisan, it is in reality intensely partisan, with a Republican incumbent running for another term against a Democratic candidate. Here are the New York Times results, which shows the Democrat is leading, with 50% of the precincts reporting..
The Republican is Dan Kelly; the Democrat is Jill Karofsky.
No state seems to have such a partisan State Supreme Court as Wisconsin. The Wisconsin judicial election system is a textbook example of why making elections technically non-partisan does not actually remove partisanship from that election.
U.S. District Court Judge Mark Walker will hear Independent Party of Florida v Lee on Friday, June 5, at 9 a.m. This is the case that challenges the 2011 Florida law that says ballot-qualified parties can’t be on for president unless they are either recognized by the Federal Election Commission as “national committees”, or unless they submit 132,781 signatures by July 15. The plaintiffs are the Independent Party, and the Party for Socialism and Liberation.
The state did not enforce this law in 2012, but it did in 2016.
On April 13, the U.S. Supreme Court put out this announcement. It will hear ten particular cases from the group of cases that had been set for March and April, but which had been indefinitely postponed. Ordinarily the Court does not hear cases in May. It uses May to write opinions from cases that had been argued earlier.
Among the ten privileged cases are the two cases on presidential electors, and also the case on President Trump’s tax returns. But the Court did not choose Carney v Adams to be heard in May. Carney v Adams is the Delaware case over whether the state can ban independent and minor party members from being considered for a judicial position.
The Court did not say what it will do about scheduling Carney v Adams and the other cases that had been postponed, and which are not among the special ten cases.
The dates in May for the ten special cases are May 4,5,6,11,12, and 13. They will be held remotely; the justices will not be in the same room with the attorneys or with each other.
This San Diego Union-Tribune story discusses the plight of groups that want to qualify initiatives in California during the health crisis. No one seems to be contemplating allowing electronic signatures in California, nor is there a hint of any possible lawsuits.