This article about Mindy Finn, vice-presidential running mate for Evan McMullin, quotes her as saying “One path is a new party.”

Evan McMullin and Mindy Finn are on the ballot in eleven states. In five of those states, the ticket could not have got on the ballot if prior minor party and independent presidential candidates hadn’t won lawsuits against ballot access laws.

The McMullin-Finn ticket got on the ballot in Arkansas, using that state’s relatively easy procedure for newly-qualifying parties that only want to run for President and Vice-President. That procedure only exists because in 1976, Eugene McCarthy sued almost all the states that didn’t have procedures for independent presidential candidates to get on the ballot, and he won all those cases. Arkansas had been one of the states with no procedure for independent presidential candidates. The Arkansas legislature was motivated to create an easy procedure for president to comply with the McCarthy victories.

The McMullin-Finn ticket had a much easier petition requirement in Idaho, because Ralph Nader won a lawsuit against the high number of signatures for independent presidential candidates in Idaho in 2010. In Daien v Ysursa, 711 F Supp 2d 1215, the U.S. District Court struck down the 1% petition requirement for independent presidential candidates (which would have been 6,524 signatures if the lawsuit hadn’t been won). Idaho then lowered it to 1,000 signatures.

The McMullin-Finn ticket got on in Kentucky because John Anderson sued Kentucky over the old April petition deadline in 1980, and won the case. Kentucky then moved that deadline to September. Because McMullin did not announce until August 2016, obviously he could not have qualified in Kentucky if Anderson hadn’t won the 1980 case.

The McMullin-Finn ticket got on in New Mexico, using the petition procedure for new parties. The Better for America Party successfully petitioned in New Mexico in June. McMullin hadn’t announced at that time, but a group searching for a candidate like McMullin organized in June and completed that petition. That petition drive would not have been possible if the New Mexico Constitution Party hadn’t won its 2012 lawsuit against the old New Mexico April petition deadline for new parties.

The McMullin-Finn ticket got on in Utah because in 1984, independent presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche sued Utah to overturn its April petition deadline for independent presidential candidates. LaRouche won that lawsuit and the state moved that deadline to August. Without that lawsuit, McMullin would not have been in time to get on the ballot in Utah.

Not withstanding all the assistance that prior ballot access activism had done to benefit McMullin, the McMullin campaign has refused to join in any efforts to ease the ballot access laws. Even though he said he would sue states with unconstitutional ballot access laws, he did not do so. He could have made a huge contribution to ballot access improvement if he had sued Florida and Texas. He had very strong potential cases in those states, but he did not act. Thanks to Gene Berkman for the link.

Greg Orman was an independent candidate for U.S. Senate in Kansas in 2014. He came in second, losing by approximately 92,000 votes to the Republican incumbent, Pat Roberts. Here is an article by Orman at Real Clear Politics, making the case for Instant Runoff Voting. Orman makes some original arguments. Thanks to Craig Marolf for the link.

Georgia this year required independent presidential candidates to file their 7,500 signatures by July 12. But the state also required such candidates to file the names of the presidential elector candidates by July 1. Rocky De La Fuente petitioned in Georgia and submitted 14,000 signatures by the July 12 deadline. But because he hadn’t turned in a list of his presidential elector candidates by July 1, the state rejected his petition, although it still went to the trouble to determine how many signatures were valid. The state said only about 20% of his signatures were invalid.

When De La Fuente challenged the petition verification in state court, the court ruled that it didn’t matter how many signatures were valid, because he couldn’t get on the ballot anyway because he hadn’t filed his electors by July 1. De La Fuente is also challenging the July 1 deadline for presidential electors, although that case is in federal court. On October 17, he filed this brief in the Eleventh Circuit in his case challenging the July 1 elector deadline. De La Fuente relies heavily on the state’s failure to come up with any actual state interest for requiring the elector candidates by July 1. The case is De La Fuente v Kemp, 16-15880.