On August 17, U.S. District Court Judge Mark H. Cohen, an Obama appointee in Georgia, directed attorneys for Georgia to respond by August 23 in De La Fuente v Kemp, n.d., 1:16cv-2937. The issue is the constitutionality of the law that requires petitioning groups for president to file their presidential elector candidates with the state several weeks before the petition itself is due. Georgia does not print the names of presidential elector candidates on the ballot. Presidential petitions contain the names of the presidential elector candidates, so De La Fuente argues that there is no state interest in requiring him to have submitted the names before the petition itself was due. A somewhat similar law in Arizona was overcome by the Green Party earlier this year.

On August 18, U.S. District Court Judge Sue E. Myerscough, an Obama appointee in Illinois, expedited the lawsuit Gill v Scholz, c.d., 3:16cv-3221. The state’s brief is due August 22, and a hearing is set for August 24 at 1:30 p.m. in Springfield.

The issue is the Illinois 5% petition requirement for independent candidates for U.S. House. The plaintiff, David Gill, an independent candidate in the 13th district, submitted over 11,000 signatures. He needed 10,754, but he was challenged and it was determined that only 8,593 signatures are valid. He is charging that the 5% petition for U.S. House is so restrictive in practice that it is extremely rare for any candidate for U.S. House to ever get that many valid signatures.

Only four states require an independent for U.S. House to submit as many as 10,000 signatures. They are Illinois, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. No one has ever complied with the Georgia requirement or the South Carolina requirement since those states have required as many as 10,000 signatures. No one has ever complied with the North Carolina requirement either, except in 2010 when a petition for Wendell Fant was submitted. The petition effort had been organized by the Service Employees International Union, which employed an army of petitioners to get the job done, although once the petition had been approved, Fant refused to run, so his name did not appear on the ballot.

On August 17, the Minnesota Supreme Court released its opinion in Moulton v Simon, A16-0925. The issue was whether Daniel Moulton should be on the primary ballot as a candidate for Judge, Third Judicial District, seat 16. Election officials rejected his application because he did not “attach” a copy of his current attorney license. But the State Supreme Court said the law only requires that a candidate “provide” a copy of the license. Moulton had showed his license to the elections office when he filed, and the decision says that was good enough. A regulation said the license should be attached but the Court said the regulation can’t require more than the statute requires.

Although the opinion was released after the primary was over, the Court had earlier issued a one-sentence order putting him on the ballot, and only on August 17 explained why. Moulton did not win the non-partisan primary; he placed third in a three-candidate field.