U.S. District Court Postpones Decision in Illinois Libertarian Case, but Says it Will Appear This Week

On the afternoon of March 23, U.S. District Court Judge Andrea Wood said her decision in Libertarian Party of Illinois v Illinois State Board of Elections will be issued “within the week.”  The issue is the unique Illinois law that says newly-qualifying parties must run a full slate of candidates, whereas already qualified parties have no such obligation.

The judge also canceled the status conference set for March 24 and reset it for April 7 at 9 a.m.  For some time she has been saying the decision will be released before the next status conference, but she has postponed the status conference date twice.

Bloomberg News Editorializes in Favor of Easing Access to General Election Presidential Debates

This editorial from Bloomberg News argues that the first general election presidential debate should include every candidate who is on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win the election.  The editorial says that subsequent debates that year should be somewhat more restrictive, with public opinion after the first debate shaping who is invited into the subsequent debates.

In all U.S. history, there has never been a presidential election with more than 7 candidates who could theoretically have won.  This is true even for the period before there were government-printed ballots.  Before there were government ballots, minor parties can still be evaluated, in retrospect, by how many states in which they printed up private ballots and distributed them to voters.

Years with 7 candidates who would have qualified, under the Bloomberg News standard, are 1976 and 2000.  Years in which six would have qualified are 1900, 1904, 1908, 1912, 1932, 1936, 1980, 1996, 2004, and 2008.

U.S. Supreme Court Won’t Hear Wisconsin Government Photo-ID Case

On March 23, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Frank v Walker, the case over Wisconsin’s law requiring certain kinds of government phot0-ID for voters at the polls.  Election law professor Rick Hasen writes about that at his blog, electionlawblog.  He is an opponent of strict photo-ID laws but is more interested in the Texas case, as he explains.

Wisconsin holds local elections on April 7, and it is not clear whether the requirement will be in effect for that election.

New Mexico Legislature Adjourns After Passing Few Election Law Bills

On Saturday, March 21, the New Mexico legislature adjourned for the year.  The 2015 session did not pass many election law bills.  Interesting bills that had been introduced, but which did not pass, were:

1. HB 151, to let 17-year-olds vote in a primary if the same voter would attain age 18 by the time of the general election.

2. HB 346, to move the primary for all office from June to March.

3. HB 405, to let people register to vote on election day.

4. SB 650, which would have allowed parties that qualify for a primary to invite independents into their primaries if they wish.  The US Supreme Court already ruled in 1986 that parties with their own primary already have this power, so all the bill would have done was put procedures for this in the election code.

The legislature did pass one large bill, SB 643, which moves the process along by which individuals can register to vote on-line, links New Mexico to the national data base of registered voters, helps overseas absentee voters, and made many other small technical changes.

Between 2001 and 2014, New Mexico and North Dakota were tied for having the fewest minor party and independent candidates on the ballot for federal and state office.  New Mexico ballot access for independent candidates is tied with Alabama for most severe in the nation, for statewide office.  But activists were not able to get any bills introduced in 2015 to ease the ballot access laws.  However, a challenge to the number of signatures for independent candidates is pending in U.S. District Court.

Pennsylvania Minor Parties File Brief in Case Against System that Puts them in Financial Jeopardy if they Petition

On March 20, the Pennsylvania Constitution, Green and Libertarian Parties filed this brief in Constitution Party v Aichele, e.d., 5:12cv-2726.  This is the lawsuit that challenges the system under which petitioning groups are at risk of at much as $110,000 in court costs and attorney fees if they file a petition that doesn’t have enough valid signatures.  Originally in this case the U.S. District Court had said the plaintiffs don’t have standing, but last year the Third Circuit said they do have standing and sent the case back to the U.S. District Court.