Illinois Ballot Access Hearing Goes Well

On April 17, U.S. District Court Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer held a hearing in Libertarian Party of Illinois v Pritzker, n.d., 1:20cv-2112.  This is the case in which the Illinois Libertarian and Green Parties asked for ballot access relief, due to the health crisis.

The judge orally seemed inclined to grant relief.  She seems to be thinking of putting the Libertarian and the Green Party statewide slates on the ballot automatically, since they have been on in recent years and achieved respectable votes.  She wants the plaintiffs to come up with a objective standards for all independent candidates for all office, and also for minor parties that may wish to be on this year, but which haven’t been on in Illinois for the last decade or so.  Also she wants an objective standard for Libertarians and Greens for district and local office.  The last time a nationally-organized minor party was on in Illinois for statewide office, other than the Libertarians and Greens, was in 2008 when the Constitution Party was on.  Also in 2018 the Conservative Party was on, but it was really just the vehicle for an independent gubernatorial candidate and no longer exists.

She set a new hearing for Tuesday, April 21, to hear ideas.  Thanks to Bill Redpath for this news.  Judge Pallmeyer is a Clinton appointee and is the chief judge of the Northern District.  She also permitted Kyle Kopitke, an independent presidential candidate, to intervene in the case.

SAM Party Amends its Ballot Access Complaint to Take Account of Newly-Enacted Restriction

On April 16, the SAM Party, a ballot-qualified party in New York, filed an amended complaint in its ballot access case.  As before, the new complaint challenges the requirement that a party must poll 130,000 votes for president, or 2% for president, whichever is more, in order to stay on the ballot.

As the original complaint explained, SAM does not desire to run anyone for president, yet the new law forces it to run for president, or lose its status as a qualified party.  The amended complaint is needed because the law that SAM is attacking was declared unconstitutional in state court earlier this year, so then the legislature passed the same requirement in March 2020 as part of the budget.  The amended complaint explains that New York legislative rules do not permit the legislature to amend the budget bill, so legislators had to vote for the bill or else they had to vote against the entire budget.

The case has a new judge.  It had originally been assigned to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, but now it is assigned to Judge John G. Koeltl.  Both are Clinton appointees.  SAM Party v Kosinski, s.d. 1:20cv-323.

News Story Describes Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Hearing on Ballot Access

On April 16, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard oral arguments in Goldstein v Galvin, SJ-2020-150, the case in which some primary candidates ask for easier methods to get on the September 1 primary ballot.

Here is an article describing the hearing.  The Secretary of State supports easing the requirements for congress by 50%, but he does not favor easing the requirements for legislature.  He supports moving the deadline for state office petitions from April 28 to May 5 (the congressional primary petitions are due May 5).

The plaintiffs favor a cut for all petitions to one-third of the existing requirement, and a later deadline, and use of electronic signatures.

The Court is aware that a proposal similar to the Secretary of State’s recommendations passed the State Senate on April 16, and they expressed a wish that the House would pass it quickly, but there is no guarantee, and there is very little time.  The bill is S2632.  All it does is cut the number of signatures for U.S. Senate from 10,000 to 5,000; the number of signatures for U.S. House from 2,000 to 1,000; and the number of signatures for Governor’s Council from 1,000 signatures to 500 signatures.  It only applies to 2020, not future years.

Virginia Court Decision that Lowered Number of Signatures for Primary is Now in Print

As reported previously, on March 25, a state trial court lowered the Virginia requirement that statewide primary candidates need 10,000 signatures.  Faulkner for Virginia v Virginia State Board of Elections, city of Richmond circuit court CL20001456-00.

The decision is now explained.  See this story in Virginia Lawyers Weekly, which has the entire text of the court order.