On March 26, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an opinion in Reuther v Delaware County Bureau of Elections, 6 MAP 2018.  The Court agreed with the lower court that candidates nominated by write-in vote in primaries are not required to file a Statement of Financial Interests.

This is not a decision on constitutionality.  It is an opinion that interprets the Pennsylvania election law, which literally only requires the Statement to be filed by candidates who submit a petition to be on the ballot.  Because no Pennsylvania law requires any write-in candidates (in either the primary or general election) to file a petition, the candidate could not be kept off the general election ballot.  The plaintiff, Christine Reuther, had won the Republican primary on write-in votes, on May 16, 2017, for the office of Tax Collector of a township.

The Supreme Court wrote, “This Court must honor the unambiguous statutory directive, which applies the fatal defect rule only to those who petition to appear on the ballot, not to write-in candidates.  Exclusion of a candidate chosen by a party’s electors is an extreme judicial intervention in the democratic process that should be imposed only when required by unambiguous legislative mandate.  Because elections ‘constitute the very warp and woof of democracy’, election laws must be liberally construed to protect a candidate’s right to run for office and the voters’ right to elect a candidate of their choice.”

On March 28, the Arkansas Libertarian Party filed a federal lawsuit against the new Arkansas ballot access for newly-qualifying parties. Libertarian Party of Arkansas v Thurston, 4:19cv-214. The case is assigned to Judge Kristine Baker, an Obama appointee.

Last month the state raised the number of signatures from 10,000 to 3% of the last gubernatorial vote, which for 2020 is 26,746 signatures.

Arkansas also required a petition of 3% of the last gubernatorial vote in 1996, when the Reform Party tried and failed to qualify. The Reform Party then sued and won its lawsuit. The 3% petition was declared unconstitutional, given the historical record that it had been in effect since 1977 and never been used successfully. The state appealed, but then dropped its appeal. However the legislature didn’t change the 3% requirement. It did move the deadline from January to May, and permitted five months to obtain the signatures, and said if the original petition was judged deficient, the party had two more weeks to get more signatures. Later the May deadline was moved earlier, and just this month the deadline was moved still earlier, to September of the year before the election.

The Green Party sued over the 3% in 2006, and it won its case also. In 2007 the legislature lowered the petition to 10,000, and action reversed by the legislature last month.

On March 27, a U.S. District Court set a date for a jury trial in Gonzales v Madigan, n.d. 1:16cv-7915. This is a lawsuit filed in 2016 around the Illinois Democratic primary for Representative, 22nd district, in Chicago. Speaker Michael Madigan represents that district. In 2016 Jason Gonzales filed to run against Madigan. Madigan then allegedly recruited two other candidates with Hispanic surnames to file in that primary. Madigan won that primary against his three opponents.

In the Seventh Circuit, there was a precedent that recruiting sham candidates violates the U.S. Constitution. Gonzales filed a lawsuit to invalidate the primary. It is now a very old case, but it is moving forward.