On August 19, the Maine legislature was called in for a one-day special session, to be held Monday, August 26. Proponents of ranked choice voting hope that on that day, LD 1083 will pass the State Senate. It has already passed the House. It provides for ranked choice voting for president. Maine currently has ranked choice voting for congress, but not president.
Minnesota law requires independent candidates, and the nominees of unqualified parties, to obtain signatures on a state form that says the signers “do not intend to vote” in the upcoming primary. On August 21, the Minnesota Libertarian Party filed a lawsuit against that language. Libertarian Party of Minnesota v Choi, 0:19cv-2312. The case is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge David S. Doty, a Reagan appointee. Here is the Complaint.
The law is especially senseless in the case of presidential petitions. Minnesota’s next presidential primary will be held on March 3, 2020. The petition for presidential candidates in the general election can only be circulated in the period May through August 18. The 2020 primary is over by then, so the language literally seems to refer to the 2024 presidential primaries, although no one thinks that is what it really means.
The lawsuit asks for relief for petitions for all office, not just president. Petitions for office other than president must be circulated in a two-week period in May, and the Minnesota primary for other office is in August. It seems unreasonable to expect any voter to know in May whether he or she will be voting in the August primary, before the list of candidates running in the August primary is known.
The News Tribune, daily newspaper for Tacoma, Washington, here editorializes against the concept of requiring presidential candidates to reveal their tax returns or be omitted from presidential primary ballots. There is no such bill, but some legislators have said they intend to introduce such a bill next year.
On August 21, the California Supreme Court issued an order for the Secretary of State to explain why the court should not strike down the new California law requiring presidential primary candidates to disclose their income tax returns. The Court also expedited the case. The state’s response is due September 4, and the California Republican Party and its state chair, Jessica M. Patterson, must respond to the state’s filing by September 11. Patterson v Padilla, S257302.
The Court also directed both sides to discuss the legislative history of the part of the California Constitution that tells the Secretary of State to put “recognized” presidential candidates on presidential primary ballots. And it wants information from the Secretary of State about how past and current Secretaries have decided who is “recognized.” The court wants all the internal measures and protocols on that subject. This will be fascinating. Secretaries of State prior to the current incumbent have always let the qualified minor parties simply tell the Secretary of State whom to list. But the incumbent Secretary of State, Alex Padilla, broke that tradition in 2016. He disallowed many of the names suggested by the American Independent Party. Also he refused to let the Peace & Freedom Party list Jill Stein on its primary ballot. He has never publicly explained why he did that, but presumably he will be required to explain.
It seems somewhat likely that the California Supreme Court decision on this matter will be quicker than the decision of any federal court, in the federal challenges to the new California law.
On August 21, the Eighth Circuit said it will not stay the July 2019 decision of a U.S. District Court that enjoined the new Arkansas ballot access law. The order does not identify which three judges handled the case. It is very short and says, “The motion for a stay pending appeal has been considered and is denied. The motion for an expedited appeal is granted and the case will be set for oral argument during the week of December 9-13 in St. Louis, Missouri.”
This order means that the Arkansas Libertarian Party is on the ballot for 2020. Theoretically if the state won its appeal that will be argued in December 2019, the party could be removed. However, it is extremely likely that the Eighth Circuit will not reverse the U.S. District Court; otherwise the Eighth Circuit would almost surely have granted the Secretary of State his request for a stay.
