Election law expert Jerry H. Goldfeder, an attorney and professor, and the author of the leading handbook explaining New York election law procedures, has filed this amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Chiafalo v State of Washington, the presidential elector case.

Goldfeder outlines the circumstances in which an unexpected event might disrupt presidential election day in the United States. He discusses hurricanes, floods, blizzards, earthquakes, terrorist attacks, and significant epidemics. Any of these, if severe enough, might shut down polling in a state and if the election were close, the outcome of the entire presidential election could be in question. Because there is no provision for a re-vote for president (federal law requires states to choose presidential electors in the first week of November in years divisible by four), there might be no solution to settling the election except for an informed decision of the electors in December. The amicus also talks about the possibility of learning something alarming about a president-elect immediately after the popular vote but before the electoral college meets. He suggests a severe heart attack, for example. He concludes that it is essential that electors retain freedom of choice.

A North Dakota initiative petition has been submitted. It would establish a top-four system. The general election would include ranked choice voting, but the primary would not. See this story.

There would be no party nominees if this initiative passed and took effect (except for President), but the initiative backers did not come up with any new method to define “political party”. Current law says a party remains on the ballot if it polls 5% for Governor, President, Secretary of State, or Attorney General. But under this initiative, there would be no party showing for any of those offices except President.

North Dakota doesn’t have party registration, and already has an open primary. Any voter is free to choose any party’s primary ballot.

On March 6, the Montana Secretary of State announced that the 2020 Green Party petition has enough valid signatures. The requirement is 5,000, and the party petition had 11,000 signatures. This is the first petition success for the Green Party (relative to getting on the 2020 ballot) since the November 2018 election.

Meanwhile, the party is still in U.S. District Court over the unequal distribution requirement for that type of petition. The law requires signatures from at least one-third of the state house districts. But even though house districts are presumed to have equal populations, the law requires that in some districts as many as 150 valid signatures are needed, while in others the requirement can be as low as 55 signatures. Such a law clearly violates the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Moore v Ogilvie, an Illinois decision that said when distribution requirements exist for statewide petitions, all the voters in each district must be treated equally. The Montana law gives more power to voters in some house districts than in others.

The lawsuit is Montana Green Party v Stapleton, 6:18cv-87.