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.

On March 25, Utah Governor Gary Herbert vetoed SB 123, a bill to set out procedures for special U.S. House elections. He vetoed it because it provided no means for candidates in special elections to get on the special primary ballot unless they did well at a party endorsements convention. On April 30 legislative leaders let it be known that they will not try to override the veto.

Utah had never had a special U.S. House election until 2017, and then it was noticed that the election code had no rules for such elections. As a result of the veto, that is still the case.

Current Colorado election law does not permit anyone to get on a presidential primary ballot unless that candidate has qualified for primary season matching funds. But, a portion of the omnibus election law bill, HB 19-1278, now pending in the House, would delete that requirement. The bill has already passed the State Senate.

Assuming that part of the bill is signed into law, presidential primary candidates would merely need to pay $500, or submit 5,000 signatures. Only parties that polled 20% of the vote in the last presidential election may have presidential primaries in Colorado. These days, virtually no Democratic or Republican presidential candidate files for primary season matching funds. Individuals who qualify for primary season matching funds are handicapped by strict expenditure limits within each of the various states, so presidential candidates avoid qualifying.

Colorado didn’t have presidential primaries in 2016. The 2017 law that drew up the rules for presidential primary ballot access included the primary season matching fund provision, but now legislators are aware of how impractical that idea is.