As previously noted, on February 1, the Eleventh Circuit agreed with the U.S. District Court, that Georgia’s requirement of approximately 50,000 signatures for presidential independent and minor party petitions is too high. On February 22, the state asked the entire Eleventh Circuit to reconsider the decision. Green Party of Georgia v Kemp, 16-11689.
On February 22, the Arkansas Senate passed HB 1532. It had passed the House on February 16. It eases the deadline for a newly-qualifying party to nominate non-presidential candidates, from November of the year before the election, to May of the election year. Assuming the Governor signs it, it will moot the Libertarian Party ballot access lawsuit that is now pending in the Eighth Circuit. The party had won the case in U.S. District Court last year, but the state had appealed. But the appeal will have no purpose, when HB 1532 is signed.
On February 16, the Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee passed SB 1307, which moves the deadline for a qualified party to submit its presidential elector candidates from June to late August.
On February 13, the South Dakota legislature passed HB 1037. It allows independent candidates for president to use a stand-in for vice-president, and allows an independent gubernatorial candidate to use a stand-in for Lieutenant Governor. Also it moves the deadline for a newly-qualifying party from March to July, but only if that new party is willing to forego running candidates for Congress, Governor or legislature.
Virginia does not print party labels on the ballot for county office, even if political parties actually nominate for county office. On February 22, the Fourth Circuit upheld that law, in a challenged filed by some Republican nominees for county office. Marcellus v Virginia State Board of Elections, 16-1331. Here is the 20-page opinion.
Page 13 says, “Of course, if a law gives some candidates for the Senate a party identifier, but not other candidates for the Senate, it would impose a burden on the associational rights of the candidates left unidentified, even though no candidate has an absolute right to be so identified. See Rosen v Brown, 970 F.2d 169, (6th cir. 1992).”
The Ninth Circuit is considering a California case over whether it is constitutional to give party labels to some candidates for the same office, but not others. That case is Soltysik v Padilla. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link to the Virginia decision.
