The Montana Republican Party filed a lawsuit last year, arguing that Montana’s open primary violates freedom of association for itself. Oral arguments are set for November 19, 2015. On October 23, the party filed its reply brief. That brief insists that if Montana requires parties to nominate by primary, then the state is obliged to set up registration by party on the voter registration forms.

The brief says, “The State’s refusal to register party affiliation severely burdens the ability of the Montana Republican Party to reach its members during the primary elections…by forcing the Party to participate in a state-run primary, the State removes the authority to select Party nominees from a small number of Party delegates to an electorate consisting of all of Montana’s 626,000 voters, all of whom are eligible to vote in its primary…the Party cannot identify its members amongst these 626,000 voters…Because the State’s mandatory open primary system severely burdens the Party’s constitutional right to identify its members, the State is obliged to ameliorate this burden by registering voters’ party affiliation.”

The party also says, “The State claims the Party ‘has apparently chosen not to create or maintain an official membership roll.’ This is false. The Party has attempted for decades to generate a list of its voters, but cannot create an accurate one.”

As far as is known, no party has ever asserted in a lawsuit that the U.S. Constitution requires a state to put a question about party membership on voter registration forms, if that state requires parties to nominate by primary. The claim that the party “cannot” create its own list of members seems unconvincing. Parties all over the world manage to build a membership list, without the help of government.

On August 13, 2015, the Washington State Supreme Court fined the state $100,000 per day until the legislature complies with earlier court orders to equalize funding for wealthy and poor school districts. However, the legislature (which had three special sessions already this year) has not been called into a fourth special session, so the fine continues to accumulate.

The legislature won’t be called into special session until legislative leaders and the Governor can agree on a solution, and that hasn’t happened yet. See this story, which is about a particular Republican candidate for Governor. The paragraph headed “a critical time” contains the information that this situation is still current. The story is dated October 30, 2015.

This is relevant because supporters of top-two systems usually maintain that top-two systems result in legislators who are centrist and reasonable and moderate and work well together. Commentary boosting top-two, so far, never mentions Washington state. Washington state has been using top-two starting in 2008. In both 2013 and 2015, the budget didn’t pass in the regular session, and three special sessions were needed. This is not the fault of the top-two system. It is the product of divided government, in which the State Senate has a Republican majority and the State House has a Democratic majority. Political science research shows that type of primary system does not affect what type of candidate is elected.

On October 30, U.S. District Court Judge Andrea Wood held a status conference in Libertarian Party of Illinois v Illinois State Board of Elections, the case that challenges the Illinois law that says a newly-qualifying party must run a full slate of candidates. Illinois does not require already-qualified parties to run a full slate of candidates. No other state has ever had a law telling any type of political party that it must run a full slate of candidates.

Judge Wood said she will issue an opinion in the case on Monday, November 2.