On August 16, the national Working Families Party announced that its members had voted to endorse Hillary Clinton for President. See this story, which says she won 68%. Most who did not support her chose “no endorsement”. The endorsement process is separate from the nomination process, and each state Working Families Party that is on the ballot will decide whether to nominate her. In the past, the only state unit of the Working Families Party that has nominated anyone for President is the New York WFP.

It is possible that the WFP of Oregon and South Carolina will put Hillary Clinton on the ballot as their nominee. The Connecticut WFP will not, because that would have meant gathering 7,500 valid signatures, which the party did not attempt.

On August 12, U.S. District Court Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald, an Obama appointee, refused injunctive relief to Rocky De La Fuente, who had sued California over the requirement that he submit 178,039 signatures by August 12 to be on the ballot. De La Fuente v Padilla, 2:16cv-3242. The requirement equals 1% of the number of registered voters.

The order says the Ninth Circuit already upheld Hawaii’s independent presidential petition in Nader v Cronin, 620 F 3d 1214. Hawaii required an independent presidential candidate to submit the signatures of 1% of the last presidential vote, due 60 days before the general election. The Hawaii requirement at the time was 3,711 signatures, due September 3. The order says, “The Court discerns no meaningful difference between the 1% requirement in Nader as compared to the 1% requirement in this case.”

An assertion that obtaining 3,711 signatures in Hawaii is no different than obtaining 178,039 signatures in California seems obviously untrue.

The judge ignored the evidence that no one has completed the California independent petition since 1992. The U.S. Supreme Court has said several times that one way to evaluate a petition requirement is to see how often it has been used.

The lawsuit is not over, and a decision on declaratory relief will be obtained in the future.

On August 15, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer revised her opinion in Johnson v Commission on Presidential Debates, 1:15cv-1580. Her original decision of August 5 had said that the Obama and Romney campaigns in 2012 had set the 15% polling threshold. The revised opinion says that the Commission on Presidential Debates set that rule and that the Obama and Romney campaigns had agreed to it.

She has not corrected her other factual errors: she omitted Ralph Nader from the list of presidential candidates who were on the ballot in states with a majority of the electoral college in 2004 yet polled under 1%; and she still lists Virgil Goode in 2012 as having been one of those candidates, when in fact he was not on the ballot in states containing a majority of the electoral college.