The Colorado referendum petition to repeal the National Popular Vote law in Colorado has enough signatures. See this story. It will be on the November 2020 ballot. This will be the first time that voters of any state have voted on the plan.
The Colorado Republican Party contributed some of the money used to pay the petitioners. Thanks to a commenter for the link.
The Hayride, a politics blog from Louisiana, here carries an article about Phil Collins, the newly-chosen 2020 Prohibition Party presidential nominee. The article also talks about Texas ballot access law.
Three amici curiae briefs have been filed in the U.S. Supreme Court in Thompson v Hebdon, 19-122. The issues are Alaska’s $500 limit on individual contributions to candidates for state office, and the strict limit on how much money a candidate may receive from individuals who don’t live in Alaska.
Here is the amicus of Cato Institute and the Institute for Justice. It is concerned solely with the $500 limit.
Here is the amicus of the Institute for Free Speech, which is also entirely concerned with the $500 limit, and argues that the Supreme Court precedents on contribution limits are hopelessly inadequate and should be re-evaluated.
Here is the brief of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which is also concerned with the $500 limit, but argues that the lower courts in this case improperly considered public opinion polling when they upheld the Alaska limits. The brief argues forcefully that the courts should not adjudicate First Amendment cases based on whether the restriction is popular.
Rocky De La Fuente’s federal lawsuit against the new California law on presidential candidate tax returns and primary ballot access has been transferred from the federal court in San Diego (the southern district) to the federal court in Sacramento (the eastern district). Therefore, all the five federal cases against the new law are assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England. The hearing is September 19. The case number for De La Fuente v Padilla is now 2:19cv-1659.
The state has asked permisison to file a single brief that will relate to all five cases. The state also wants permission to exceed the normal length for briefs of this type. It is difficult to imagine a single brief, because the cases differ in some ways. They include two candidates, President Donald Trump and De La Fuente, who are not situated identically. Also they include two cases that have no candidate-plaintiffs, just voter-plaintiffs. And they include a case filed by the Republican National Committee, which has issues of freedom of association that are not present in the other cases.
On August 28, Illinois filed a brief in Gill v Scholz, 19-1125. This is the case that challenges the Illinois law that requires independent candidates for U.S. House to submit a petition of 5% of the last vote cast. The state’s brief says that two independent candidates succeeded in recent years for U.S. House: one in 2018 and one in 2010. But the state’s brief does not say that no one challenged either petition. In Illinois in 2010, a candidate who submitted even one signatures was allowed to be on the ballot, if no one challenged. In 2018 the policy was somewhat different. A candidate who submitted 10% of the requirement and who was not challenged was automatically put on the ballot, making the 2018 petition, in effect, a one-half of 1% petition (if the candidate was lucky enough not to be challenged).
Therefore, the two examples the state cites do not support the concept that a 5% petition is reasonable.
