On January 24, the Illinois Green Party filed its opening brief in the Seventh Circuit in Tripp v Scholz, 16-3469. The original case had been filed in 2014 and challenged the difficult petition rules for independent candidates, and the nominees of unqualified parties, for state legislature. The party argues that the combination of the high number of signatures (5% of the last vote cast), the need to have the petitions notarized, the 90-day period for circulating the petition, and the gerrymandered districts, together makes it virtually impossible for anyone to ever complete such petitions, especially in the less densely-populated parts of the state.

The U.S. District Court for the southern district had upheld the law in August 2016.

It is likely that U.S. House member Ryan Zinke of Montana will soon resign, in order to become Secretary of the Interior. Montana’s Secretary of State has posted this information for candidates interested in running in the special election. Unlike many other states, Montana does not reduce the number of signatures needed in special elections, when the petitioning time is short.

Montana says a candidate could be petitioning now. However, it is tough for anyone to petition when there is no certainty that the special election will occur. Congressman Zinke would not resign until after he is approved for his new job. Also Montana has severe winter weather and petitioning is difficult in January. The petition requirement is unusually high now because the requirement is based on the turnout in the November 2016 election. The state requires 14,268 signatures for an independent in the special election, although a new party needs 5,000 signatures and a potential independent candidate would be free to circulate a petition for a new party and then seek to be that new party’s nominee. Thanks to Steve Kelly for the link.

Courts in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New York, and Wyoming have held that when the petitioning time is considerably shorter than usual, states must relax the number of signatures, or else expand the petitioning time.

Five Connecticut Democratic legislators have introduced HB 6575, which says that presidential candidates must release their last three federal income tax returns, or they may not have any presidential elector candidates on the ballot. The Connecticut general election ballot doesn’t now list candidates for presidential elector, but the ballot does say “Vote for Presidential Electors” (and then the presidential and vice-presidential candidates’ names are listed). Here is the text, which is very short.

The bill’s reference to presidential elector candidates appears to be an attempt to insulate the bill from the principle that states cannot add to the qualifications for federal office that are listed in the U.S. Constitution. However, that probably wouldn’t work. If a state were to pass a law saying no presidential candidate under the age of 40 could have eligible presidential elector candidates, surely that would not be constitutional. In U.S. Term Limits v Thornton, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that invalidated term limits for members of Congress, the proponents of term limits tried to save their law by making it a ballot access restriction, but the U.S. Supreme Court still invalidated those laws. Those laws said that anyone could be a write-in candidate for congress but no one could have his or her name on the ballot who had already served several terms, but that didn’t work. Thanks to Andrew Rule for the news about the bill.