On April 1, Paul Merritt, a California independent candidate for U.S. Senate, filed a federal lawsuit over (1) the law that forces him to have “party preference: none” on the June 7, 2016 ballot, instead of “independent”; (2) the fact that his ballot statement, which said, “Paul Merritt, Registered Independent voter” was altered to delete those last three words.

The lawsuit, Merritt v Padilla, c.d., 8:16cv-606, is pro se. On April 8, U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter refused to grant an order changing the ballot label or changing the statement in the voter pamphlet. The denial was based partly on procedural errors by the plaintiff and partly because the Judge said the Ninth Circuit already upheld denying the label “independent” in Chamness v Bowen, 722 F.3d 1110 (2013). However, the decision in Chamness says that denying an independent candidate the word “independent” on the ballot might be unconstitutional, if any plaintiff submits evidence showing that the denial injures the candidate. But in Chamness, the plaintiff did not present any evidence that “Party preference: none” is worse for independent candidates than “independent”. See this story about Merritt’s lawsuit.

From the FEC Website:

The Federal Election Commission has declared Jill Stein eligible to receive federal matching funds. Stein is seeking the Green Party nomination for president for 2016.

To become eligible for matching funds, candidates must raise a threshold amount of $100,000 by collecting $5,000 in 20 different states in amounts no greater than $250 from any individual. Other requirements to be declared eligible include agreeing to an overall spending limit, abiding by spending limits in each state, using public funds only for legitimate campaign-related expenses, keeping financial records and permitting an extensive campaign audit.

Based on documents filed by Jill Stein for President on March 28, 2016, contributions from the following states were verified for threshold purposes: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. All of the materials included with this submission may be viewed here. Based on Stein’s initial threshold submission, the Commission has requested that the United States Treasury make an initial payment of $100,000 to Stein’s campaign.

Once declared eligible, campaigns may submit additional contributions for matching funds on the first business day of every month. The maximum amount a primary candidate could receive is currently estimated to be about $48.01 million.

The presidential public funding program is financed through the $3 check-off that appears on individual income tax returns. The program now has two elements: matching payments to participating candidates during the primary campaign and grants available to nominees to pay for the general election campaign. On April 3, 2014, President Barack Obama signed legislation to end the public funding of presidential nomination conventions.

On April 11, the U.S. District Court that is hearing Utah Republican Party v Herbert asked the Republican Party whether the party still contests the constitutionality of the Utah election code that governs how candidates may get on the Republican Party primary ballot. The federal court asked for a response by April 13.

On April 13, the Republican Party responded that it still believes that the election code, as recently interpreted by the Utah Supreme Court, violates the party’s right to control its own nomination process. Therefore, the federal court will again take up the question of whether the law is unconstitutional or not. The law says candidates seeking a Republican nomination can either show substantial support at a party caucus, or petition to get on the primary ballot. The party does not want anyone to be able to petition onto the primary ballot. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.