On July 24, the North Carolina legislature passed SB 3, on the same day the bill had been introduced. It says that party labels for judicial candidates will be omitted, for candidates who had switched party affiliation during the 90 days preceding filing for office.

The motive for the bill is that one of the State Supreme Court elections this November has three candidates on the ballot, two Republicans and one Democrat. There is no provision for a runoff. The Republican majority in the legislature believes that one of the Republicans is secretly loyal to the Democratic Party, and that he only changed his registration from Democrat to Republican, and then filed to run, in order to split the Republican vote. There are no party nominees for judicial races in North Carolina, and no involvement with any primary, but there are party labels in November.

If Governor Roy Cooper vetoes the bill, the legislature will almost certainly override his veto. If it is enacted, there will be a question as to whether it is constitutional for a government to print party labels for some candidates, but not other candidates. A similar case is pending in the Ninth Circuit in California, Soltysik v Padilla. A decision could come at any time.

On July 26, the Public Policy Institute of California released a poll for various offices and issues. The poll asked about the U.S. Senate race. In November, two Democrats are the only candidates listed, and there is no write-in space. Among likely voters, 20% volunteered that they will leave their ballot blank for U.S. Senate (the pollster did not suggest this idea). Here are the results. Scroll down to page eight for the U.S. Senate race.

In November 2016, when there were also just two Democrats on the ballot for U.S. Senate, 16% of the voters left U.S. Senate blank.

On July 25, the Rhode Island State Board of Election Canvassers determined that Rocky De La Fuente should remain on the Republican primary ballot as a candidate for U.S. Senate. His ballot position was challenged by a voter, but the Board’s attorney expressed the opinion that the U.S. Constitution does not allow states to impose residency requirements for congressional candidates, because Article One only mentions the candidate’s residence on election day, and no one can know the future residence of anyone else. If he happened to win the Republican primary, it is conceivable he would then move his residence to Rhode Island. See this story. The primary is September 12.