The Jamestown (New York) Post-Journal has this story about the status and the arguments in the two pending cases to save fusion in New York state. One case is filed by the Working Families Party; the other by the Conservative Party.
1
North Carolina holds an election for U.S. House, 9th district, on September 10. On August 11, the nominees of the Democratic, Libertarian and Green Parties debated each other in Fayetteville. The debate was sponsored by the local NAACP. See this story.
The Republican nominee did not attend.
California SB 696 will be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Wednesday, August 14, at 9 a.m. Here is a link to the Appropriations Committee’s analysis of the bill. Choose the August 12, 2019 version. SB 696 says no party can have the words “independent” or “independence” in their names. If signed into law, it will force the American Independent Party to choose a new name later this year.
The Appropriations Committee analysis does not contain any warnings that the bill may violate the First Amendment. By contrast, when the bill was in the Assembly Elections Committee, the analysis for that committee did mention that problem. The same link enables anyone to also read the Assembly Election Committee analysis, which is dated July 1, 2019.
The link also has some April 2019 analyses, but they are irrelevant because back then, the bill had an entirely different subject matter.
On August 13, the proponents of a local initiative in Ohio asked for a rehearing en banc in Schmitt v LaRose, 19-3196. This is the case the challenged the ability of local election board members to decide that an initiative should be kept off the ballot, even if it has enough valid signatures, because the board members think the initiative would not be constitutional or valid. Here is the Petition. The Sixth Circuit original decision in this case had virtually said the First Amendment doesn’t apply to the initiative process, a conclusion that is soundly rebutted in the brief.
On August 1, attorneys for California’s Secretary of State sent a brief letter to the Ninth Circuit, to help with its consideration of the lawsuit Rodriguez v Newsom, 18-56281. Rodriguez v Newsom is a challenge to California’s practice of choosing presidential electors with an at-large vote. The California government letter points out that in June 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court said the Constitution permits gerrymandering, in Rucho v Common Cause. The letter suggests that this means that electing presidential electors at-large must also be constitutional.