On August 17, the South Dakota Constitution Party asked a U.S. District Court to reconsider its August 15 order, which had denied injunctive relief of putting the party’s nominees for U.S. Senate and state house on the November 2016 ballot. Here is the 6-page brief. The court had said the complaint in this case was not specific enough, but the request for reconsideration has persuasive authority that the U.S. District Court erred.
The New York Libertarian Party statewide petition (containing candidates for President and U.S. Senate) is now safe from challenge. Although two individuals filed general objections, they did not follow up with the needed specific objections, and the time has now expired.
On August 1, Rocky De La Fuente voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit against the Florida law on how an independent presidential candidate gets on the ballot. He no longer needs the lawsuit, because he is the Reform Party nominee and the Reform Party is on the ballot in Florida.
On August 16, the Nevada Green Party filed a federal lawsuit over Nevada’s June 3 petition deadline for new parties. Nevada Green Party v Cegavske, 2:16cv-1951. The party had submitted its petition by the deadline, but was told after several weeks that it did not have enough valid. It then submitted another 1,200, but they wee not accepted since the deadline had passed.
The lawsuit is based on the fact that in 1992, when the deadline was June 10, a U.S. District Court enjoined it and said it was too early. That case was Fulani v Lau.
On August 16, the Georgia Secretary of State said that the Green Party presidential petition doesn’t have enough valid signatures. The state says only 5,925 signatures are valid. The requirement is 7,500. See this story.
This is the second time Georgia has rejected a presidential petition this year. Georgia rejected Rocky De La Fuente’s petition because he didn’t submit the names of his presidential elector candidates by July 1. De La Fuente has a lawsuit pending over whether the separate earlier deadline for presidential electors is constitutional or not.
