On February 21, U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Piersol struck down South Dakota ballot access laws for newly-qualifying parties. Libertarian Party of South Dakota v Krebs, 4:15cv-4111. The plaintiffs were the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. The case had been filed in 2015. Here is the 16-page opinion.

The opinion says that the March 27 petition deadline is too early, especially given winter weather in South Dakota. It also says the 2.5% (of the last gubernatorial vote) is also too high, given the historical record of few minor parties qualifying. The Reform Party did not qualify in South Dakota in 1996; the Green Party has never qualified; the Natural Law Party never qualified; the New Alliance Party never qualified.

The state defended the March 27 deadline by saying that deadline is necessary to give new parties their own primary in June. But the opinion says there is no state interest in requiring new or small parties to nominate by primary. It says, “In our two-party dominant system, the Republican and Democratic Parties often have more than one candidate for each political office and thus need to run in a primary election where the registered voters of each party must choose their candidate. But Defendants have not explained why this rationale should apply to new political parties.” UPDATE: here is a news story. FURTHER UPDATE: here is a news story from the Argus Leader.

On February 21, Lawrence Lessig’s organization, Equal Votes, filed lawsuits against California, Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Texas, alleging that these states’ decision to award electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Here is the Massachusetts complaint. The others are similar. All four are in U.S. District Courts in their own states.

The Massachusetts case is Lyman v Baker, 1:18cv-10327. One of the plaintiffs is William Weld. As the Complaint says, Weld is a registered Libertarian.

The California case is Rodriguez v Brown, c.d., 2:18cv-1422.

The South Carolina case is Baten v McMaster, 2:18cv-510. Here is a link to that Complaint.

The Texas case is League of United Latin American Citizens v Abbott, w.d., 5:18cv-175. Here is the Texas Complaint. Thanks to Jim Riley for help with that.

Similar cases in the past in several states have not won. In Louisiana, the case was Lowe v Treen, 393 So 2d 459 (1981). In Alabama it was Hitson v Baggett, 446 F.Supp.674; 580 F.2d 1051 (1978 & 1979). In California it was Graham v Eu, 408 F.Supp.37 (n.d. 1976), affirmed 423 U.S. 1067. In Virginia it was Williams v Virginia State Board of Elections, 288 F.Supp. 622 (e.d. 1968), affirmed 393 U.S. 320 (1969). In Mississippi it was Penton v Humphrey, 264 F.Supp.250 (s.d. 1967). Also in 1966, thirteen states sued the other 37 states, arguing that all states must use districts to choose electors. That case was filed directly in the U.S. Supreme Court, but that Court refused to hear it. Delaware v New York, 385 U.S. 895.

The pundits at 538.com have a conversation about whether a new major party might arise, or whether there will be a strong independent presidential candidate in 2020 or the near future after that.