Montana Legislature Passes Bill Lowering Number of Signatures for Independent Candidates for Non-Presidential Office

on April 17, the Montana legislature passed HB 207. Although originally this bill raised the number of signatures for non-presidential independent candidates and the nominees of unqualified parties, the final version lowers the petition requirement, from 5% of the winner’s vote in the last election, to 4% of the winner’s vote.

Assuming it is signed, this decreases the petition requirement for U.S. Senate in 2026 from 15,985 signatures to 12,788 signatures. This still leave Montana will one of the strictest statewide independent petition requirements of any state.

The bill also says that if a petition fails, the candidate receives his or her filing fee back. And it makes it illegal for a primary loser to be a write-in candidate in the general election.

This appears to be the first bill that has passed in any state this year that eases ballot access.

Presidential independents continue to need 5,000 signatures.

Seventh Circuit Rules that Shiva Ayyaddurai’s Wisconsin Ballot Access Case was “Frivolous”

On March 20, the Seventh Circuit issued a four-page opinion in Marshall v Wisconsin Election Commission, 24-2746. This was the last pending lawsuit filed by independent presidential candidate Shiva Ayyadurai last year, over whether states can keep presidential candidates off the ballot if they don’t meet the constitutional requirements. The decision is unsigned and will not be published. It says the whole issue is “frivolous” and that states may keep such presidential candidates off the ballot. This is a more complicated issue than the opinion acknowledges. It occupied hundreds of pages of briefs and amicus briefs in 2024 in Trump v Anderson, the case over whether Donald Trump should be on various ballots in 2024.

The judges are Frank Easterbrook, a Reagan appointee; Thomas K. Kirsch II, a Trump appointee; and Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, a Biden appointee. This case arose from Wisconsin.

U.S. Supreme Court Has Extended Deadline for Federal Election Commission to File Response in Campaign Finance Case Four Times

All year, a case has been pending in the U.S. Supreme Court on the federal law that limits how much political parties may spend on the campaigns of their own nominees, assuming the party and the nominee coordinate with each other. The case is National Republican Senatorial Committee v FEC, 24-3051.

The FEC still hasn’t filed a brief in defense of the law. The FEC response deadline has been postponed four times. It was due January 6, then February 6, then March 10, then April 9, and is now due May 9.