Maine Representative Beth Turner (R-Burlington) has introduced LD 568, which eliminates the ability of an independent candidate to use the label “independent” on the ballot. It also eliminates the ability of an unqualified party to place nominees on the ballot with that party’s label.

A somewhat similar law was struck down by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 1981. The State Supreme Court decision was unanimous, and said “independent” is too important a label to be banned. The Massachusetts law that was struck down forced all independents to be on the ballot as “unenrolled.” The decision is Bachrach v Secretary of the Commonwealth, 415 NE 2d 832.

Also, in 1986, a Maine state trial court struck down the old Maine law on labels for petitioning candidates. The old pre-1986 law said they could have no label whatsoever, but in Huber v Quinn, that policy was struck down. Ever since the 1986 Maine decision, petitioning candidates in Maine have been free to choose any partisan label as long as it is no longer than three words and does not mimic the name of a qualified party. Thanks to John Branson for news about LD 568.

On March 1, Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson signed HB 1532. It moves the deadline for a newly-qualifying party to choose its nominees from November of the year before the election, to May of the election Year. This is the most significant ballot access improvement that has been made by any legislature so far in 2017.

On February 28, Paul Merritt, an independent candidate for U.S. Senate in California in the June 2016 primary, filed a request for reconsideration in Merritt v Padilla, U.S. District Court, central district, 8:16cv-606. California has a Voters Guide, which is postally mailed to all registered voters in advance of a federal or state election. The law permits candidates who are willing to pay to have a statement in the Guide, and does not restrict the content, except to require that candidates not discuss their opponents.

Merritt’s statement, which he paid for, said he is a registered independent. The Secretary of State deleted that information from the heading of his statement. A U.S. District Court ruled earlier this year that because it is legal in California to prevent independent candidates from having the ballot label “independent”, therefore it is also legal for the state to prevent this label from being in the heading of a candidate’s statement in the Guide.

The motion for reconsideration points out that when the 9th circuit upheld the ban on “independent” on the ballot, it said the ban doesn’t do much harm because a candidate has an “alternative way” to express his or her views in the Guide. Therefore, it is obvious the ballot and the Guide have different levels of government control. The Guide has less room for government control than the ballot.