On April 11, the Ninth Circuit heard De La Fuente v Wyman, 18-35208, in Seattle. Here is a link to the video, which lasts 48 minutes. Washington has one of the nation’s oddest
ballot access procedures. The state requires 1,000 valid signatures. They can only be collected at locations that have been named in a newspaper notice. The candidate must place the notice at least ten days before he or she starts to petition.

The state allows petitioning at multiple locations, but each location must collect at least 100 valid signatures, or none of the signatures count. The state law refers to this process as an assemblage of electors, but that is a very misleading phrase, because what really happens is a petitioning process, not a meeting.

De La Fuente was kept off the ballot in November 2016 because by the time he started petitioning, it was less than ten days before the deadline, so there was no possibility of running a newspaper notice at least ten days before starting to petition. He challenged the requirement that the notice be placed at least ten days before the election. Although he failed to get injunctive relief, after the election the U.S. District Court declared the newspaper notice to be unconstitutional, because it didn’t serve any state interest. The state then appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The three judges are William Fletcher, Consuelo Callahan, and Morgan Christen. The very last question in the hearing was by Judge Callahan. She asked if a single newspaper notice could say that the petitioners are going to be at a particular location, but on many particular dates in the future. The attorney for the state said that is permitted.

Earlier this year, the Kentucky legislature changed the deadline for the nominees of qualified convention parties to file a declaration of candidacy, from April 1, to mid-January of an election year. Kentucky elects its statewide state offices in November 2019, as well as some partisan county offices. The bill, HB 114, took effect immediately.

On April 11, the Kentucky Libertarian Party filed a federal lawsuit against the new law, Sweeney v Crigler, e.d., 2:19cv-46. The complaint challenges the need for the nominees of a qualified convention party to file such declarations of candidacy so early in the year. Aside from that, the complaint also argues that it violates due process for the bill to have taken effect immediately. The party’s nominating convention this year was in early March, so the nominees had no chance to file their declarations by mid-January. The party is running for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Auditor, Agriculture Commissioner, and some county offices.

The party is on the ballot but if it doesn’t win this lawsuit, it won’t be able to have any nominees on this year’s ballot. The case is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge William O. Bertelsman, a Carter appointee.

Constitutional ballot access cases filed by minor parties, and independent candidates, are now pending in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New York, North Carolina, Utah, and Washington.

U.S. District Court Judge Andre Birotte has set a scheduling conference for May 31, Friday, at 10 a.m., in Soltysik v Padilla. This is the case that challenges California law on ballot labels. If a candidate for Congress or partisan state office is a member of a qualified party, the candidate’s party of registration is printed on the ballot next to his or her name. But if the candidate is a registered member of an unqualified party, no party label can appear. The plaintiff is a registered Socialist.

Californians to Defend the Open Primary, which had intervened in this case from the beginning on the side of the state, has now dropped out of the case. Californians to Defend the Open Primary includes the Independent Voter Project, the California Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Roundtable.