On February 5, the U.S. District Court that is handling Libertarian Party of Ohio v Husted, s.d., 2:13cv-953, got closer to a final decision on the last issue to be decided. That last issue is whether Ohio applied a campaign finance law in a discriminatory manner in 2014, when for the first time it kept a candidate off the ballot because the circulators didn’t fill out a blank form on the petition, telling who their employer was. The law had never before kept anything off the ballot, whether a ballot measure or a candidate. But in 2014, it was used to keep the only Libertarian running for Governor off the Libertarian primary ballot. That kept the party from having any gubernatorial nominee in 2014, and that insured it went off the ballot, because the only way it could stay on was by polling 2% for Governor.

The February 5 activity in the case was an order denying sanctions against attorneys representing the side of the case in opposition to the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party had requested sanctions, because some of those attorneys and witnesses had made it so difficult for the truth to be revealed about who was paying legal bills to keep the party’s candidate off the ballot. Although the Court did not impose sanctions, it said, “The overall conduct of discovery in this case, especially on the part of Mr. Felsoci’s and Mr. Casey’s counsel, demonstrates a pattern of technical and begrudging responses and objections to discovery requests, which pattern was clearly designed to delay or obstruct the Plaintiffs’ ability to learn that the Ohio Republican Party was involved in the effort to keep Libertarian Party candidates off the ballot…should these particular attorneys or parties come before the Court in future cases, the history of their conduct here will strongly influence the Court’s approach to discovery, including sanctions.”

On February 5, a 3-judge U.S. District Court issued an opinion in Harris v McCrory, m.d., 1:13cv-949. It found that North Carolina’s U.S. House district boundaries for the First and Twelfth Districts violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

The decision gives the state two weeks to redraw the boundaries. The state is, of course, free to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to countermand the decision. If the U.S. Supreme Court declines to get involved at this stage, and if the legislature doesn’t redraw the boundaries, the 3-judge court will do so.

North Carolina’s primary for all office is on March 15. If the decision is not stayed, it seems inevitable that the state will need to hold a later, separate primary, for U.S. House. The First and Twelfth districts do not touch each other. The First district is in the northeast and touches Virginia, and the Twelfth District is in the western half of the state and touches South Carolina. The two districts are so irregular in shape, one or the other one of them touches every other U.S. House district except the 11th district. Thus, any new districts will change virtually all the districts.

The opinion was written by U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Roger L. Gregory, a Clinton appointee. U.S. District Court Judge Max Cogburn, an Obama, wrote separately to say he is in complete agreement with Judge Gregory. He wrote separately to express himself about the harm done by any type of gerrymandering. He mentioned that one of the Congressmembers who represents the 12th district said it was almost impossible for him to visit all the communities in his district, because it extends hundreds of miles in a very thin strip, with many tentacles. U.S. District Court Judge William L. Osteen, a Bush Jr. appointee, said he agrees that the First District is unconstitutional but that he feels the Twelfth District is constitutional.

If the decision stands, it has ballot access implications. If North Carolina has a later primary for U.S. House, the state will feel the need to extend the independent candidate petition deadline, at least for U.S. House. North Carolina’s independent candidate deadline is June 9. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link. UPDATE: see this story.