On September 22, the three minor parties who won in U.S. District Court in July against Pennsylvania’s ballot access laws asked the Third Circuit to summarily affirm that U.S. District Court decision. The issue is Pennsylvania’s unique system of putting petitioning groups at risk of paying huge court costs if their petitions don’t have enough valid signatures. The case is Constitution Party of Pennsylvania v Cortes, 13-1952.

When the state filed its appeal with the Third Circuit earlier this month, it raised only procedural issues with the case. But now the minor parties are pointing out that those procedural issues were already raised in the Third Circuit in this same case in 2014, and the Third Circuit agreed with the minor parties that this case does not have procedural problems. Therefore, the minor parties ask the Third Circuit to terminate the state’s appeal summarily. If that request is granted, it is likely to be granted very soon.

Casey Seiler has this interesting analysis of the legal problems of the Women’s Equality Party, in the Albany, New York Times Union. Seiler suggests that the Attorney General and the Comptroller both have motives for their refusal to sign any documents that would give the Women’s Equality Party a legitimate set of state party officers.

As reported already, last week a New York state court decision ruled that the Women’s Equality Party has no legitimate officers and therefore no bylaws. As a result, some of the party’s nominees are now being challenged. For example, see this story.