As of October 19, this is the Oklahoma registration total: Republican 1,000,073; Democratic 778,229; Libertarian 8,497; independent and miscellaneous 326,192. The percentages are: Republican 47.33%; Democratic 36.83%; Libertarian .40%; independent and miscellaneous 15.44%.
At the beginning of 2018, the percentages were: Republican 46.79%; Democratic 38.23%; Libertarian .24%; independent and miscellaneous 14.76%.
The Montana Green Party currently is suing Montana in U.S. District Court, over its early petition deadline and its distribution requirement. On October 18, the Secretary of State filed this brief, asking the Court to dismiss the case.
Next week, the Green Party will file a response, and also file a motion for summary judgment. Montana Green Party v Stapleton, 6:18cv-87.
On October 17, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that three statewide ballot measures should be on the November 2018 ballot. A trial court had removed them because they encompass more than a single subject. Here is the opinion in Detzner v Anstead, SC 18-1513.
Four justices believe that the Constitution Revision Commission, which put the measures on the ballot, is free to combine several subjects into a single ballot measure. Three other justices disagree. However, even those three justices voted to put the measures on the ballot, because they believe that the lawsuit filed to get the measures off the ballot has a procedural flaw.
On October 9, attorneys for the Washington Secretary of State submitted this brief to the Ninth Circuit, in De La Fuente v Wyman, 18-35208. The issue is the Washington law that says before an independent presidential candidate can begin to petition, he or she must run a legal notice in a newspaper, two weeks before starting. The legal notice must say where the petitioning will be carried out. The U.S. District Court had struck down the law, and the state is appealing. The plaintiff is Rocky De La Fuente, an independent presidential candidate in 2016.
On October 16, U.S. District Court Judge Roberto Lange enjoined a South Dakota campaign finance disclosure law as applied to the Institute for Free Speech. The Institute wants to publish an analysis of two South Dakota ballot measures on the Institute’s web page. The Institute does not expect to take a position on the ballot measures, which relate to campaign finance. On October 8 it filed a federal lawsuit to protect itself, because the existing law seems to require the Institute to disclose its top five contributors if it publishes commentary about the ballot issues.
Here is the 13-page order in Institute for Free Speech v Jackley, 3:18cv-3017. The order depends on the fact that the Institute would not be spending any money, or virtually no money, just by posting its own analysis on its own web page. To the extent that the Institute wanted to send out a press release to news outlets mentioning its analysis, the cost for that would be virtually nothing as well. The state had argued that the Institute would not be in violation of the law even if it didn’t disclose, but the law itself seems to say that it would be in possible legal jeopardy, so the Institute received judicial relief.
