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.

George Skelton, veteran politics columnist for the Los Angeles Times, writes here that it is not a good idea for states to require presidential candidates to reveal their tax returns as a condition for being on the ballot.

On April 10, the same three judges who had issued an opinion in Adams v Delaware Governor, 18-1045, in February 2019, slightly rewrote their opinion. This is the case filed by a Delaware attorney who is an independent voter. He challenged a Delaware constitutional provision requiring state judges to be members of one of the two largest parties. The law also provides for a partisan balance, between those two parties, for judicial appointments.

The state had asked for rehearing shortly after the original decision came out. On April 10 the three judges granted the rehearing request, but then came to the same conclusion as in their first opinion. The state had also asked for rehearing en banc (in other words, that all the full-time judges of the Third Circuit rehear the case), and that request is still pending.

Here is the new opinion, which is 44 pages including the concurrence.

Here is the original opinion from February, which is 39 pages.