The Pennsylvania House convened at 11 a.m. on Monday, June 27. However, as of 3 p.m. eastern time, the House has taken no action on HB 342, the bill that revamps ballot access for minor party and independent candidates. The U.S. District Court hearing the ballot access case had been aware that the House might act on the bill this morning or early afternoon. There is a telephone conference call for the Judge and the attorneys on each side set for 3 p.m. The House is in caucus as of 3 p.m. and will probably go into session again later in the day.
A Georgia state trial court will hear a challenge to the 5% petition requirement, for independent candidates for district and county office, on July 8 at 10 a.m. The case is Garner v Boren, Muscogee County, su 16-cv-1720. The plaintiff is an independent candidate for Muscogee County Court Clerk. The law requires him to submit 5,226 valid signatures by July 12. That number is approximately 45% of all the votes cast in the primary for that office. If he doesn’t win the case, the voters will see only one candidate, the Republican Party nominee, on the November ballot.
As reported earlier, last week the Green Party sued the Arizona Secretary of State over the deadline for qualified parties to submit candidates for presidential elector. The Courthouse News Service has this article about the lawsuit. It is somewhat unusual for Courthouse News Service to write articles about cases that have just been filed. Usually it only covers cases when the decision comes down, or after the oral argument.
The petition deadline for Illinois is June 27. The Libertarian Party turned in 53,000 signatures and the Green Party is about to turn in 50,000 signatures. The requirement is 25,000 signatures.
On June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court said it will hear McCrory v Harris, 15-1262. This is a North Carolina lawsuit over U.S. House district boundaries. The lower 3-judge U.S. District Court had invalidated the state’s districts, forcing North Carolina to hold a late primary this month just for U.S. House, because the districts had not been in place at the March 2016 primary.
In February 2016 the U.S. Supreme Court had declined to block the new districts, which suggests that when the U.S. Supreme Court hears the case, it is likely to uphold the decision of the 3-judge U.S. District Court.