In 1996, former Colorado Governor Dick Lamm sought the Reform Party presidential nomination. He was defeated for that nomination by Ross Perot in a mail ballot. Perot received 32,145 votes; Lamm received 17,121. Third Party Watch recently interviewed Lamm about the 1996 campaign, and the Reform Party’s 2000 presidential campaign, and also about Lamm’s thoughts about the upcoming presidential election. See this link.

The interviewer makes one linguistic error when he or she refers to the general election funding the Reform Party received in 2000. General election funding for the presidential campaigns of certain parties is not “matching funds.” There is no matching for general election presidential public funding. The amount of money is calculated using the party’s percentage of the vote in the previous presidential election. “Matching funds” only refers to primary season public funding. Thanks to Independent Political Report for the link.

On April 30, James Hall filed his cert petition in the U.S. Supreme Court. He was an independent candidate for U.S. House in Alabama, and he sued over the requirement that he get a petition of 3% of the last gubernatorial vote, in a short time period. He won the case in U.S. District Court, after the election was over. Then the Eleventh Circuit ruled last year that the case had been moot when he won, and the Eleventh Circuit therefore erased the declaratory judgment that he had won.

The case is Hall v Secretary, State of Alabama, 18-1362. Here is the petition.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said that constitutional ballot access cases are not moot just because the election is over. The Eleventh Circuit acknowledged this, but said it doesn’t apply in special elections. There has never been any other court that set forth that procedure, and the Eleventh Circuit did not support its opinion with any precedents. The vote was 2-1.

Hall asks the U.S. Supreme Court to take his case, and establish that special election constitutional ballot access cases are not moot just because the election is over. There is a circuit split, because in Schaefer v Townsend, the Ninth Circuit struck down a California ballot access restriction after the election was over, and Schaefer v Townsend involved a special congressional election. When there is a circuit split, the odds that the U.S. Supreme Court will take a case are somewhat higher.

If Alabama chooses to respond, its response is due May 30.