The Eighth Circuit will hear Libertarian Party of Arkansas v Martin, 16-3794, on Wednesday, September 20. On September 12, the panel of judges assigned to the case sent a letter to both sides, asking them to be prepared to discuss whether the case is moot or not. That is because, after the Libertarian Party won the case in U.S. District Court, the legislature amended the law to substantially fix the problem that the Libertarians had complained about.

The issue in the original case was whether it is constitutional to force newly-qualifying parties to choose all their non-presidential nominees (in a convention) months before the major parties hold their primaries. After the state lost the case in U.S. District Court, the legislature liberalized the convention deadline, by moving it to primary day.

Even though the legislature removed the problem that had caused the lawsuit, the state continues to appeal the decision. No other state in the history of constitutional ballot access litigation had ever continued to appeal a lower court decision, after the legislature amended the law in the direction desired by the plaintiffs. Thus there is no precedent on ballot access mootness for this type of situation.

On September 12, a Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order against part of the New Hampshire voter registration law passed earlier this year. New Hampshire Democratic Party v Gardner, Hillsborough Superior Court, 2017-cv-432. The order is by Justice Charles Temple, a member of the State Supreme Court.

The law says persons who register within 30 days of an election, and who don’t have documents proving that they are domiciled in New Hampshire when they register, must return to the registration office within either 10 days or 30 days (depending on whether their town has full-time hours for voter registration, or not) with the proof. If they don’t return, they are subject to a possible $5,000 fine or even jail time. This part of the law is suspended, pending further court activity. Here is the 13-page decision. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

On September 11, the California legislature passed AB 469 by 60-11. It lowers the number of signatures for statewide office, for candidates unwilling or unable to pay the filing fee, from 10,000 signatures to 7,000. It lowers the number for State Senate and U.S. House from 3,000 to 2,000. It lowers the number for Assembly from 1,500 to 1,000.

These petitions need not be completed. If they are only partially completed, then there is a proportional decrease in the filing fee. The California filing fees are higher than the fees of most states. For statewide office the fee is 2% of the office’s annual salary; for district office, 1%.

The bill now goes to Governor Jerry Brown. It also eliminates the ability of in lieu of petitions to be supplemented if the original petition doesn’t have enough signatures to completely eliminate the fee, but it makes it legal to start circulating these petitions earlier than under the existing law. The bill received a two-thirds vote in each house of the legislature, so that it can take effect immediately instead of January 1, 2018.