On October 22, U.S. District Court Judge David Nuffer ruled against the Republican and Constitution Parties over trademark issues. Utah Republican Party v Herbert, 2:14cv-876. The two parties had argued that the federal Lanham Act, which deals with trademark protection, should enable them to protect their party name from being used by candidates who don’t represent the party. But the decision says the Lanham Act can’t be used against the state, because the parties had earlier given consent for the state to print their party names on the ballot.

The larger issue in the case, over whether the parties enjoy freedom of association protection against the 2014 law that lets candidates run in their party primaries even if they have no support at party caucuses, is still alive. The judge issued another order, also on October 22, requiring the Utah Republican Party to hire another attorney, because the original attorney (who is permitted to remain in the case) has on several occasions failed to submit briefs by the deadline. The judge wants this case settled by the end of 2015. He wrote, “There is a potential that SB 54, or provisions of SB 54, could be found unconstitutional. If so, such a decision needs to be rendered before the next legislative session in Utah, otherwise there is a risk that elections held in 2016 will be interrupted, litigated, or invalidated.”

On September 23, 2016, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced the dates and cities for the general election presidential debates. At that time it said, “The CPD will announce candidate selection criteria in the near future.” See the CPD site here; click on the September 23 link to read that promise.

So far, the criteria haven’t been announced.