On April 1, the New York legislature passed the ballot access restrictions that had been invalidated last month. They increase the vote test for qualified party status, and increase the number of signatures for statewide independent candidate petitions, and for the nominees of unqualified parties, from 15,000 to 45,000 signatures. See this story. The Governor signed the bill on April 1.

These changes had been invalidated on March 12 by a State Supreme Court, on the basis that the legislature had not passed them. Now the legislature has passed them. These changes were included in the budget bill passed on April 1.

Case law is very clear that states cannot increase the number of signatures for ballot access in the election year. The U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed Hudler v Austin, in which a Michigan law that was passed in April 1976 was invalidated (as to the 1976 election), not on the merits, but because it was being enforced for the 1976 election. 419 F.Supp. 1002, (e.d.Mi.), Aug. 18, 1976; affirmed, 430 U.S. 924 (1977).

On January 7, 2014, a U.S. District Court in Ohio said that the new petition requirements for unqualified parties passed by the legislature on November 6, 2013, could not be enforced for the 2014 election. The new petition requirements would have been 55,806 signatures, due July 2, 2014. Libertarian Party of Ohio v Husted, s.d., 2:13cv-953, 2014 wL 11515569.

The St. Louis initiative to use Approval Voting for the city’s elections for its own officers has enough valid signatures. In November 2020 the voters of St. Louis will vote on whether to use Approval Voting. Approval Voting lets a voter vote for as many candidates as desired, even if only one office is being filled. All votes cast count equally and which candidate has the most votes wins.

Massachusetts, like 47 other states, elects its presidential electors on a winner-take-all system, in which the slate that gets the highest popular vote wins all of the state’s electors. On March 31, the First Circuit said that provision does not violate the U.S. Constitution. Here is the opinion in Lyman v Baker, 18-2235.

A similar case had the same outcome in Texas earlier this year. Other similar cases are pending in Appellate courts in California and South Carolina. Thanks to Howard Bashman for this news.