On June 7, the Arizona Libertarian Party asked a U.S. District Court to enjoin the new Arizona law that sharply increased the number of write-ins needed for a Libertarian to be considered the winner of his or her primary. The old law only required a few write-ins, assuming the candidate is unopposed in the Libertarian primary. But the new law requires even unopposed candidates to get such a large number of write-ins that winning is impossible.

The earlier Libertarian request to enjoin the number of signatures for a Libertarian to get on the primary ballot was refused on the basis that the request had been made only weeks before the primary ballots were being printed. But that objection does not apply to any action on the number of write-ins needed in the primary. The Libertarian court filing attached a 1980 decision from federal court in Arizona, striking down the number of write-ins needed for members of the Socialist Workers Party to win their party’s primary. The Socialist Workers Party was a ballot-qualified party with its own primary in Arizona and 1976 and 1980.

This Libertarian lawsuit has no impact on the presidential race, but if Libertarians don’t get any relief, there will probably be only one Libertarian on the November ballot in Arizona for office other than president.

On June 13, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Tuaua v United States, 15-981. The issue was this language in the 14th amendment, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” American Samoans are not citizens of the U.S., but in this case some Samoans argued that the Constitution requires that they be considered citizens. The lower court had ruled against the Samoans. The Samoans had hired noted U.S. Supreme Court practitioner Ted Olson to handle their case in the U.S. Supreme Court, but to no avail.

Rocky De La Fuente, who is an independent presidential candidate, has filed lawsuits against several state ballot access laws that require a very large number of signatures.

He sued California on May 11, 2016. That case is De La Fuente v Padilla, c.d., 2:16cv-3242. California requires 178,039 signatures for an independent presidential candidate. The procedure has not been used for any statewide office since 1992, when Ross Perot qualified in California as an independent. According to the U.S. Supreme Court decisions Storer v Brown and Mandel v Bradley, courts should evaluate petition requirements for independent candidates by checking the history of how many times they have been used. No lawsuit has previously been filed by any independent presidential candidate against the California requirement, although lawsuits were filed in the 1970’s by an independent candidate for U.S. Senate, Nancy Jewell Cross.

De La Fuente also sued Florida, on March 29. Florida requires 119,316 signatures for an independent presidential candidate. No one has qualified as an independent candidate for any statewide office in Florida since 1992, when Perot qualified. The Florida Supreme Court ruled in 1974 in Danciu v Glisson that it is unconstitutional for Florida to require more signatures for an independent candidate than for a new party. Florida has been ignoring this decision ever since 1999, when it eliminated all mandatory ballot access petitions for new parties, and non-presidential independent candidates, but retained a very tough requirement for independent presidential candidates.