On October 18, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Hinkle issued a 55-page ruling in Jones v DeSantis, n.d., 4:19cv-300. This is a case filed in June 2019 over the confusing new Florida state constitutional provision that says ex-felons may register to vote if they have “completed all terms of sentencing.” The legislature this year passed HB 7066, which says “all terms of sentencing” means ex-felons must have paid all fines, orders for restitution, court fees, and civil liens.

The plaintiffs are ten ex-felons who cannot afford to pay these various amounts, but who would still like to register to vote. The order says that individuals who cannot afford to pay any of these amounts cannot be denied the right to register. It orders the state to create a procedure by which individuals can apply to register based on their own evidence that they cannot afford the amounts. The ten particular plaintiffs will also now be allowed to register.

On October 10, the Utah Supreme Court released its opinion in Count my Vote v Cox, 2019-UT-60. By 6-1, the Court upheld a severe ballot access barrier for statewide initiatives. The law permits opponents of an initiative to have 30 days after the petition deadline to try to persuade signers to remove their names. During that 30 days, the proponents of the initiative cannot collect any more signatures.

An organized campaign to defeat an initiative may not need to persuade many signers to withdraw their signatures. The law also requires that a statewide initiative have the signatures of 10% (of the last presidential vote) in 26 of the state’s 29 State Senate districts. So the opponents of the initiative only need to target a handful of legislative districts to disqualify an initiative. Even though the petition may easily have the signatures of 10% of the state’s last presidential vote, it can be disqualified if it meets the 10% standard in only 25 of the State Senate districts, instead of 26. Here is the opinion. The particular initiative that was disqualified would have ended the ability of parties to use party meetings in the candidate qualification process. Instead the initiative would have simply let party primaries choose party nominees.

Rocky De La Fuente is in the process of filing this cert petition in the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to review the Ninth Circuit decision that upheld California’s ballot access law for independent presidential candidates. No independent candidate petition in California has succeeded since 1992. Important presidential candidates who failed to use the procedure include Eugene McCarthy in 1976, Ralph Nader in 2004, and Evan McMullin in 2016. UPDATE: the case is 19-524. If the state wishes to respond, its brief is due November 21. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the update.

For 2020, California requires almost 200,000 valid signatures, to be collected in 105 days. The petition cannot begin to circulate until the presidential candidate has chosen his or her 55 presidential elector candidates, because the names of all of them must appear on the petition.