On August 4, the voters who supported Cornel West’s ballot position in North Carolina filed this brief in their ballot access case. Although the U.S. District Court had put Cornel West’s party on the ballot last year, the case is still alive because West and his supporters are seeking a federal court decision that the State Board of Elections last year violated the U.S. Constitution when it kept his party off the ballot even though it had enough valid signatures.

The purpose of getting a declaratory judgment in this case is to avoid the same problem in future elections. Ortiz v North Carolina State Board of Elections, e.d., 5:24cv-420.

US House of Representatives member Kevin Kiley (R-CA) proposes banning congressional redistricting before the 2030 Census results are available. Here is the latest on that.

Here is a column written by Russ Wigginton, who is President of the National Civil Rights Museum at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis. BTW, I have been to the NCRM twice, and I highly recommend a visit to one and all.

However, I do wish people would keep separate the two very important issues of “Voting Rights” for people casting ballots in elections, and “Ballot Access,” which is the ability of candidates for public office to be listed on election ballots. This can easily instigate confusion in the public sphere, and both issues are sufficiently important to maintain their own monikers. There seems to be an unfortunate trend to use the phrase “Ballot Access” to describe Voting Rights. While I think this is usually done innocently, it is possible that it may be used sometimes to tacitly downplay the ballot access problems of some political parties and candidates.