The Fourth Circuit will hear Johnston v Lamone, 19-1783, during the last week of January 2020. The exact date hasn’t been set yet. This is the case in which the Maryland Libertarian Party argues that there is no rational reason for it to collect 10,000 signatures on a petition to restore its party status, given that it has 22,000 registered members. The U.S. District Court had ruled against the party, speculating that perhaps the party’s registrants are still registered Libertarian by default and no longer care about the party. There is no evidence in the case to support that idea.

The California Constitution, Article II, sec. 5(a), says, “The legislature shall provide for primary elections for partisan offices, including an open presidential primary whereby the candidates on the ballot are those found by the Secretary of State to be recognized candidates.”

The Independent Voters Project, which supports the top-two system, filed a lawsuit on July 23, 2019, arguing that because the term “open primary” is in the California Constitution in connection with the presidential primary, therefore the current law on presidential primaries (which allows each party to decide whether to let independent voters vote in its presidential primary) violates the California Constitution. The Independent Voters Project thinks “open primary” in this context means the state must print a presidential primary ballot with all presidential primary candidates from all parties on that ballot, and that any voter must be allowed to use that ballot.

The case has a hearing in San Bernardino on November 19 at 8:30 am. It is Boydston v Padilla, civ-ds-1921480.

That part of the California Constitution was added many years ago by the voters, and the Voters Pamphlet for that election shows that “open primary” meant a presidential primary open to all partisan candidates. Before that was added to the California Constitution, presidential candidates needed a severe petition in order to get on a presidential primary ballot.

Facing South has this article about Texas judicial elections, which are partisan. The story says that even though many thinkers deplore partisan judicial elections, the Texas Constitution requires them. For the Constitution to be changed, the voters would need to approve the change, and the story says that polls show voters like partisan elections for state court judges.