The California Supreme Court has said it will hear oral argument in Patterson v Padilla, S257302, no later than the week of November 4-8, 2019. Conceivably it could be earlier. This is the case over whether the California Constitution permits the state to enforce its law that presidential primary candidates must reveal their tax returns. Patterson, the first-named plaintiff, is the state chair of the California Republican Party.

Although a U.S. District Court has enjoined that law on federal constitutional grounds, the state is appealing that to the Ninth Circuit. Therefore it is still sensible that the State Supreme Court will hear the state constitutional case. The state constitution says that all “recognized” presidential candidates (who are seeking the nomination of a qualified party) must appear on a presidential primary ballot.

On October 13, California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed AB 681, which would have required election officials to send two notices to registered voters in advance of a presidential primary, telling them which party (if any) they are registered in. The veto message says the expense would be considerable. In any event, he had already signed SB 72, which lets voters at the primary change parties instantly.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has this article about the Georgia restrictions on U.S. House candidates, and that the Libertarian Party has asked the Eleventh Circuit to strike them down. Despite the dramatic nature of Georgia history, the Journal-Constitution has traditionally given very little attention to ballot access for U.S. House, so the article is welcome.