On April 25, U.S. District Court Judge John A. Woodcock denied injunctive relief to the Maine Libertarian Party, in its ballot access lawsuit to become a qualified party in Maine. Libertarian Party of Maine v Dunlap, 2:16cv-0002. The 27-page order says because the Maine primary (for office other than President) is on June 14, there isn’t time to provide the party with its own primary. Twice it says “chaos” would result if the party were put on the ballot.

The judge appears to have completely missed the point that the Maine Libertarian Party wasn’t asking for a primary. In many other ballot lawsuits, courts found ballot access laws for new parties unconstitutional, but made the decision too late for a primary for that party; so the judges let such parties nominate by convention instead. The U.S. Supreme Court made such a ruling in 1968, when it put the American Independent Party on the ballot in Ohio even though it was too late to give the party a primary. At the time, the Ohio law said all parties nominate by primary.

Other courts that did the same thing include a U.S. District Court in Arkansas in 1996, for the Reform Party; a U.S. District Court in Hawaii in 1986, for the Libertarian Party; a U.S. District Court in Nebraska in 1976 for the Libertarian Party (the 8th circuit agreed with this ruling, after the election was over); a U.S. District Court in Nevada in 1986 for the Libertarian Party; an Ohio state court in 1976 for the American Independent party; a U.S. District Court in Ohio in 2008 for the Libertarian and Socialist Parties; a U.S. District Court in Oklahoma in 1984 for the Libertarian Party; and a U.S. District Court in Tennessee in 2012 for the Green and Constitution Parties. Like Maine, all of these other states had laws saying new parties must nominate by primary, but these courts still crafted relief allowing conventions instead.

The party will file a request for reconsideration. The Maine deadline for a newly-qualifying party is December 1 of the year before the election, and that was the main issue in the case.

Delaware has posted the number of registered voters in each party, qualified and unqualified alike. See the April 1, 2016 figures here.

Compared with the February 1, 2016 tally, the two major parties have grown and the number of independent and minor party voters has declined. This is probably because Delaware is holding a closed presidential primary on April 26, so people have had a reason to join the Democratic and Republican Parties. The only party, other than those two, that gained between February and April is the Independent Party, which went from .62% of the state total, to .63%. Democrats increased from 47.22% to 47.33%; Republicans increased from 27.97% to 28.06%.

For the last several months, voters have not been allowed to switch parties, but starting April 26, they can again switch parties. But then on May 28, they again can’t switch parties, until after the non-presidential primary in September is held. Therefore, during the next month, the two parties that hope to re-qualify for the ballot will carry out a registration drive. They are the Green Party (which now has 608 registrants) and the Constitution Party (which now has 323 registrants). They each need 653 registrants by August 20.

The only parties that have enough registrations now, besides the two major parties, are the Independent Party and the Libertarian Party. Between February and April, the Independent Party went from 4,033 registrants to 4,124; Libertarians declined from 1,191 to 1,174.

On April 22, U.S. District Court Judge Kevin Sharp, an Obama appointee, issued a 52-page opinion in George v Wallace, m.d., 3:14cv-2182. The issue is how many votes a proposed state constitutional amendment needs to pass in Tennessee. The Tennessee Constitution says in Art. II, sec. 3, “If the people shall approve such amendment by a majority of all the citizens of the state voting for Governor, voting in their favor, such amendment shall become a part of that Constitution.”

For many decades, this was interpreted to mean that a constitutional amendment needs more “yes” votes than “no” votes to pass, and in addition the number of “yes” votes must be as great as 50% of the total vote cast for Governor, plus one. Ordinarily, more people cast votes for Governor than for any ballot measure. In midterm years, Governor is at the top of the Tennessee ballot, followed by statewide measures. Some voters only want to vote for Governor and don’t care about the measures. Requiring the measure to get at least as many votes as 50% of the gubernatorial vote seems intended to make sure that the measure won support from all the voters who showed up, not just 50% of the people who voted on the measure.

Surprisingly, though, Judge Sharp interpreted the Tennessee Constitution to mean that if a particular voter doesn’t vote for Governor, then that particular voter can’t vote for the ballot measures. If a voter who left Governor blank does vote for a ballot measure, then his or her vote doesn’t count. Judge Sharp says his interpretation of the meaning of the Tennessee Constitution is “the only interpretation”, and he says the Tennessee Constitution is “clear.”

Therefore, he ordered the state to recount the votes cast on Measure One from the November 2014 election, this time examining every ballot again and throwing out the votes cast on Amendment One by voters who skipped the gubernatorial race. The decision says the U.S. Constitution requires that elections be fair, and that it isn’t fair to ignore the plain meaning of the State Constitution.

The decision does not mention Partnoy v Shelley, 277 F Supp 2d 1064 (s.d., 2003), a U.S. District Court decision that struck down a California law that said, in a recall, voters who leave the recall question blank can’t then vote on the next part of the ballot. In a California recall election, the next part of the ballot asks voters who should replace the office-holder in case the recall wins. The decision in Partnoy says there is a constitutional right not to cast a vote, and a law disenfranchising voters who vote in the candidate half of the ballot, but prefer to skip the recall question, violates due process.

Amendment One in Tennessee in 2014 restricted abortion. The total vote cast for Governor in Tennessee in 2014 was 1,353,728. 50% of the gubernatorial vote is 676,864. Amendment One received 729,163 “yes” votes and 657,192 “no” votes.

If this decision is not overturned on appeal, it won’t be possible for the state to recount the votes and obtain perfectly accurate results, because in January 2015 a building storing the Van Buren County ballots burned down. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.