The Working Families will endorse one Democrat for president later this year, but in the meantime it has announced that the endorsement will go to one of these six candidates: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Julian Castro, Bill de Blasio, or Kamala Harris. See this press release, which only relates to West Virginia.
See this story, which says that the story is true for the entire Working Families Party, not just the West Virginia WFP.
On July 5, a state trial court in Arizona ruled that the Green Party is ballot-qualified within the city of Tucson for the 2019 election. Arizona law says that a party that wins qualified status keeps that status for two elections. Yet Tucson election officials had said they did not think the Green Party was ballot-qualified for 2019, even though the party had earned status in the 2017 city election.
The judge wrote, “The City of Tucson and its clerk abused their discretion and acted arbitrarily and capriciously by not including the Green Party as a political party qualified for the August 27, 2019 primary election ballot.”
Between the evening of July 4, and the afternoon of July 5, the Ballot Access News website was not working. People who attempted to see the page were told they had to enter a password. This was a technical glitch; there has been no attempt to restrict readership to anyone at this web page.
As of 2 p.m. California time, the comments are blocked, but that should be fixed by 4 p.m. California time.
The Alaska Libertarian Party lost its qualified status in November 2016 because it polled less than 3% for Governor (it got 1.91%). However, Alaska law says that a party that polled 3% for president at the last presidential election is a “Limited Political Party.” On December 9, 1987, the Alaska Attorney General ruled that the Libertarian Party is a “Limited Political Party” for the 1988 election because it had received 3.08% for President in November 1984. The fact that the LP had lost its qualified status in November 1986 because it had polled under 3% for Governor was no impediment to its presidential status.
On July 3, the Tenth Circuit panel that is hearing Baca v Colorado Department of State, 18-1173, asked attorneys on both sides to file supplemental briefs on whether the Tenth Circuit should even adjudicate the case. The issue is whether presidential electors have a constitutional right to vote for any qualified candidate, or whether they can be fired if they vote for a presidential candidate other than the individual who received the most popular votes in the state.
The Tenth Circuit order says, “The parties are hereby directed to file simultaneous supplemental briefs on or before July 19, that address the following questions: 1. Whether Will v Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989), and/or Arizonans for Official English v Arizona, 520 US 43 (1997); (a) impact(s) the district court’s jurisdiction to entertain this action; or (b) render(s) this case moot by preventing the district court from awarding nominal damages. 2. Whether this court, assuming jurisdiction, should exercise our discretion to affirm the district court on the alternate ground that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the defendant – the Colorado Department of State – is not a “person” for purposes of liability under 42 USC 1983.”
