On March 22, 2016, the Sixth Circuit issued this 17-page opinion in U.S. v NorCal Tea Party Patriots, 15-3793. The immediate issue in the Sixth Circuit was whether the IRS must release the names of all applicants for tax-exempt status in the last few years. A group of Tea Party and associated groups had filed a lawsuit, alleging that the IRS treats them far worse when they apply for 501(c)(3) tax status, than the IRS treats other groups. In order to prosecute the lawsuit, the Tea Party groups wanted to engage in discovery. Specifically, the plaintiffs wanted to show evidence that the IRS treats other groups far more leniently. But the IRS had refused to comply with that discovery request. The Sixth Circuit ordered the IRS to release the list.

The decision’s first two sentences are, “Among the most serious allegations a federal court can address are that an Executive agency has targeted citizens for mistreatment based on their political views. No citizen — Republican or Democrat, socialist or libertarian — should be targeted or even have to fear being targeted on those grounds.” The decision is by Judge Raymond Kethledge, a Bush Jr. appointee. The decision is co-signed by Judge Damon Keith, a Carter appointee, and David McKeague, a Bush Jr. appointee.

The allegations in the underlying lawsuit are that the IRS took four times as long to process applications from Tea Party Groups, and asked very obtrusive information, such as the names of all donors who had run for office, and for e-mail communications among the group’s leaders. Tax-exempt groups (otherwise known as 501c3 groups) are legally permitted to engage in limited, issue-based political advocacy. The lead plaintiff is the Northern California Tea Party Patriots, but there are many plaintiffs and this is a class action lawsuit. Thanks to Mark Seidenberg for this news.

On March 24, the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, agreed with the lower court that the challenge to Ted Cruz’ spot on the New York Republican presidential primary ballot was filed too late. Korman v New York State Board of Elections, third division. The challenge was based on qualifications listed in the U.S. Constitution for president.

The question of when challenges were due is not simple to understand. In New York, the challenge procedure is generally in connection with a petition, but in New York, Republican presidential primary candidates don’t need a petition (although Democratic presidential candidates do). The Courts so far in this case have construed the New York law on deadlines for challenges to be based on the date when the presidential candidate filed a declaration of candidacy. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news.

On March 23, the South Dakota Constitution Party and the South Dakota Libertarian Party filed this brief in their ballot access lawsuit. The case challenges the March 29 petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties who want to be recognized. Last month the state responded to this case by saying that parties that just want to be on the ballot for President and most of the statewide state executive positions need not file their petition for party status until July 11. The state then argued that the March 29 deadline is valid, for parties that want to run for the other partisan positions, Congress, Governor, and Legislature.

In response, the parties argue that the Constitution protects the ability of people to organize a new party in the spring of an election year, and that such a new party should be allowed to run for all offices, not just some of them.