On March 22, attorneys for Montana state government filed this brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Ravalli County Republican Central Committee v McCulloch, 15A911. The issue is whether the Republican Party of Montana has a freedom of association right to avoid the June 7, 2016 open primary. The party complains that the open primary allows Democrats to vote in the Republican primary. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy had asked for this filing, and is pondering whether to order that the June 2016 primary process be altered in some undetermined way.
On March 18, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed SB 25, which repeals the straight-ticket device. The only states that still have them are Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas.
All six of the Virgin Islands delegates to the Republican national convention have been ousted by the chair of the Territory’s Republican Party. The chair said they failed to accept their election in writing. See this story.
Among the nation’s biggest media, the New York Times has been almost unique in its disdain for the Libertarian Party. Most presidential election years, the newspaper doesn’t even mention the party or its presidential nominee. Even in 1987-1988, when for the first time the Libertarian Party recruited an ex-member of Congress as its presidential nominee, the paper ran no story about the Ron Paul candidacy. Earlier this year, when Gary Johnson declared for the Libertarian nomination on January 6, the New York Times was one of the few large newspapers that did not mention that news.
But, on March 22, the Times published a lengthy news story that contains a substantial amount of information about Johnson, and even a picture of him. See this story.
Probably one reason the Times has ignored the Libertarian Party in the past is that the party has never been ballot-qualified in New York or New Jersey.
On Monday, March 21, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Wittman v Personhuballah, 14-1504. The issue is Virginia’s U.S. House district boundaries. The legislature drew a plan in 2012 that was held to be an unconstitutional racial gerrymander by a 3-judge U.S. District Court. Here is a description of the oral argument from Scotusblog. The Justices seem to have spent more time thinking and asking about who has standing in such cases, than on the issue of racial gerrymandering.
A “racial gerrymander” means packing so many members of a racial or ethnic minority into a handful of districts, that members of that group have very limited influence in other, neighboring districts.