On April 24, the chair of the South Carolina Republican Party held a news conference to say that the party has demanded that independent gubernatorial candidate Tom Ervin stop referring to himself as an “independent Republican” in his campaign ads. See this story.

South Carolina does not have registration by party, so whether or not any individual is a party member depends entirely on how that individual defines himself or herself. Ervin has already responded to the threat by saying he will not comply with the party’s demand.

There were many independent candidates on the November 2012 ballot who referred to themselves as Republicans or Democrats. That was because, due to a confusing campaign finance law, many legislative candidates from the two major parties were removed from the primary ballots of their own parties and had to run as independent candidates.

On April 23, the Democratic Governors Association filed a federal lawsuit against certain Connnecticut campaign finance laws. The Association wants to make independent expenditures this year in support of Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy, a Democrat who is running for re-election. The lawsuit says that Connecticut laws on independent expenditures provide that spending isn’t “independent” if the group and the candidate have had close contact in the recent past. The Democratic Governors Association says that it understands that its decisions about spending in the Connecticut race itself must be completely uncoordinated with Governor Malloy. But it says that the state, unless restrained by a court, will simply presume that the expenditures aren’t independent, just because Malloy has been active in the organization.

The case is Democratic Governors Association v Brandi, 3:14cv-544. It was assigned to U.S. District Court judge Janet C. Hall, a Clinton appointee. See this story for more details.

On April 22, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Susan B. Anthony List v Driehaus, 13-193. The issue is the constitutionality of an Ohio law that makes it a criminal offense for anyone to spend money on a statement about a candidate or ballot measure that the state considers false. The lower federal courts had refused to rule on the constitutionality of the law, citing procedural reasons. There have been several separate challenges to the law, but so far none of the lawsuits has resulted in any court deciding whether the law is constitutional.

Virtually every comment and question made by any Justice was critical of the lower court decision. It is extremely likely that the Supreme Court will remand the case back to a lower court and ask it to decide the constitutional issue. If that happens, it is somewhat likely that the precedent will help in other election law cases, and First Amendment cases, to overcome standing problems.