On May 1, the Florida legislature passed CS/HB 1205. It says that no one may circulate an initiative petition to more than five voters plus family member voters who live with the circulator, unless the circulator has taken a two-hour on-line course. See this story.
It also imposes fines of $2,500 on anyone who circulates but who doesn’t submit the petitions within ten days after they had been signed.
A Maine state representative, Laurel D. Libby, has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to restore her ability to cast votes in the legislature. She lost the ability to vote in late February 2025, because she refuses to apologize for her statements about the issue of whether it is fair to let transgender women compete in high school sports. Libby then sued the Speaker of the Maine House so that she can again vote, but she lost in U.S. District Court and in the First Circuit.
Her U.S. Supreme Court filing is here, and was filed on April 28. Today the Court asked for a response. The case is Libby v Fecteau, 24A1051.
The Working Class Party petition for party status for 2026 has been verified, so the party is back on the ballot again. The only other qualified parties currently are Democratic, Republican, and Green.
On May 1, the Sixth Circuit issued a nine-page opinion, upholding the Tennessee law that requires 43,498 signatures for a new or previously unqualified party to get on the Tennessee ballot. Darnell v Hargett, 24-5856.
The opinion is by Judge Chad Readler, a Trump appointee. It is also signed by Judge Amul Thapar, another Trump appointee; and Eric Clay, a Clinton appointee. It will not be published.
It merely says that the law has been upheld before. It does not mention that since then, the Sixth Circuit struck down Michigan’s 30,000-signature requirement for independent statewide candidates. Nor does it mention that the Tennessee law has existed since 1972 and has never been used. It doesn’t mention any U.S. Supreme Court ballot access opinion.
On April 30, the federal government asked the U.S. Supreme Court for a fifth extension of time in which to respond to National Republican Senatorial Committee v Federal Election Commission, 24-621. Here is the request. This is the case over the federal campaign finance law that limits how much money parties can donate to the campaigns of their own nominees, assuming the party and the candidate are coordinating with each other.
The lower courts had upheld the limits, because the U.S. Supreme Court had upheld them several decades ago. The plaintiff Republican Senatorial Committee hopes to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to change its mind. The old decision decades ago had been 5-4.
