Filing Closes for Utah Presidential Primaries

Filing for Utah presidential primaries closed December 12. Any qualified party is eligible to have a presidential primary, but each party had to affirmatively tell the state elections office if it wanted a presidential primary. The parties that did so are the Democratic, Republican, and Constitution Parties.

Candidates needed a filing fee of $500. No one filed in the Constitution Party presidential primary. The Democratic presidential primary will have 16 candidates; the Republican ballot will have seven. See the list here.

Wisconsin State Trial Court Orders State Board of Elections to Remove 234,000 Voters, Only 66 Days Before Upcoming Election

Wisconsin holds a judicial primary election on February 18, 2020. A State Supreme Court seat is on that ballot. On December 13, an Ozaukee County Circuit Judge ordered the State Board of Elections to remove 234,000 registered voters, all of whom either did not respond to an October 2019 mailing asking them to re-affirm their residence, or for whom the post office could not deliver the notice. See this story. Wisconsin has election-day registration.

California Judicial Candidate Changes his First Name to “Judge”

California elects Superior Court Judges in non-partisan elections. In the March 3, 2020 election in Los Angeles County, a candidate is running for that office. His name at birth was Michael Richard Cummins, but several years ago he changed his name, so that now his legal name is Judge Mike Cummins. He has an opponent who is suing to prevent him from using his name on the ballot. See this story.

U.S. Supreme Court Won’t Hear California Ballot Access Case

On December 16, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear De La Fuente v Padilla, 19-524, the California case over the independent presidential petition, which requires almost 200,000 signatures, to be collected in 105 days. No one has complied with the petition since 1992. At the oral argument, the Ninth Circuit had discussed the uncontradicted evidence in the case that the law is not needed to prevent ballot crowding. But when the opinion case out, there was no acknowledgement of that evidence, and the court said the law is needed to prevent ballot crowding.