This article quotes the Minnesota Secretary of State as saying that he can’t hold the presidential primary on March 3, because of the pending ballot access lawsuit De La Fuente v Simon, A19-1994. The case is in the State Supreme Court. The Court is expediting the case, but the Secretary of State tried to get it handled even faster, and the State Supreme Court refused his request.

The case has a voter co-plaintiff, James Martin, who says he wants to vote for De La Fuente. The article doesn’t mention De La Fuente’s name; it only mentions the name of the voter-co-plaintiff. The issue is the portion of the law that gives the party complete control over which names to list. The Minnesota Republican Party only wants President Donald Trump’s name on its ballot.

On December 19, Jill Stein filed this brief in Stein v Boockvar, e.d., 2:16cv-6287. This is the lawsuit filed in 2016 by Jill Stein against vote-counting machines in some Pennsylvania counties that did not have a paper trail. The state settled that lawsuit and agreed that all counties would soon have vote-counting machines that leave a paper trail, and also that allow a voter to see what votes that voter has just cast.

Stein re-opened the case when it became apparent that in some counties, the new technology still doesn’t allow a voter to see what votes that voter has just cast. In some counties the voter only sees a bar code, not the actual ballot.

On December 16, the Ninth Circuit said that the five federal cases over the California tax returns-ballot access law are moot. The Ninth Circuit order in all these combined cases says, “Because these appeals were mooted by the California Supreme Court’s decision in Patterson v Padilla, and not through any voluntary actions of the parties, we remand these matters to the district court with instruction to vacate the October 2, 2019 order.”

This means that the U.S. District Court order, finding that the California law keeping presidential primary candidates off ballots unless they reveal their income tax returns violates the U.S. Constitution, can’t be used as a precedent in future litigation. Here is the three-page order.