On February 1, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan issued a 28-page opinion in Level the Playing Field v Federal Election Commission, 1:15cv-1397, D.C. She ruled that the FEC clearly did not look at the evidence presented by the plaintiffs Peter Ackerman, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and Level the Playing Field. The evidence is voluminous and shows that the Commission on Presidential Debates, and particular commissioners, are not non-partisan when they act to keep all presidential candidates (except for the Democratic and Republican nominees) out of the general election debates.

The decision says that when the FEC refused to investigate the behavior of the Commission on Presidential Debates, it did not even acknowledge the evidence, nor did it explain why it is disregarding the evidence. Here are a few samples of the evidence mentioned in the decision: a quotation from Alan Simpson, a Commissioner for the Commission on Presidential Debates, who said, “Democrats and Republicans on the commission are interested in the American people finding out more about the two major candidates — not about independent candidates who mess things up.” Also, Commissioner John Lewis said, “There’s no question that the two major parties have absolute control of the presidential debate process.” Commissioner Newt Minow said, “The responsibility for the debates should rest with the political system — with the Democratic and Republican Parties.”

The decision orders the FEC to reconsider the complaint against the CPD within sixty days. The decision says that the judge will not now order the FEC to change its debates ruling, and that the FEC now has a second opportunity to give the complaint the attention it deserves.

Two of the six FEC commissioners already voted to act on the complaint, so it is not difficult to imagine that the FEC will take the hint and revise its earlier ruling that the CPD is not breaking the campaign finance laws.

On February 1, the Wyoming House committee that hears election law bills defeated HB 201, which would have set up Wyoming’s first presidential primaries. See this story.

On February 1, 2017, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the March 2016 U.S. District Court decision that struck down Georgia’s ballot access barrier for minor party and independent presidential candidates. That March 2016 lower court decision said requiring approximately 50,000 signatures for president is unconstitutionally high, given the facts and historical record in Georgia. UPDATE: here is an Atlanta Journal-Constitution story about the decision.

The Eleventh Circuit did not write its own opinion. It just entered a two-sentence order saying the U.S. District Court decision is correct. The U.S. District Court decision is reported now: Green Party of Georgia v Kemp, 171 F.Supp 3d 1340 (n.d. 2016).

This decision will be very helpful in the new struggle needed in Florida for presidential ballot access. Florida had had very easy presidential ballot access starting in 1999, until August 2016, when the Florida Secretary of State changed his mind and said he would enforce a 2011 ballot access law that his predecessor had refused to implement. That 2011 Florida law said qualified minor parties could not be on for President unless they submitted over 100,000 valid signatures or unless the Federal Election Commission had awarded “national committee” status to that particular party. The Secretary of State in 2011 had said he would not enforce that law because he had no official knowledge of which parties the FEC had recognized. But in August 2016 that decision was revoked, which kept Gloria La Riva, Evan McMullin, and Thomas Hoefling off the Florida ballot, with no warning.

Florida is in the Eleventh Circuit along with Georgia and Alabama, so Eleventh Circuit’s decision binds Florida also.