On July 22, Maine Representative Larry Dunphy announced that he has left the Republican Party and is now an independent. Maine has registration by party. Dunphy has an op-ed in the Bangor Daily News condemning the way the Republican and Democratic Parties expect their Maine state legislators to follow the wishes of party leaders. The op-ed is co-signed by Brian Jones, a former Democratic member of the legislature who was defeated for re-election after one term.

This is the seventh time this year that a state legislative seat has switched from being held by a Democrat or a Republican, to being held by an independent or minor party nominee. Dunphy will not run for re-election in 2016. Here is a news story about his switch. Thanks to Thomas MacMillan for the links.

The Sixth Circuit is still considering the rehearing request filed in the Michigan Socialist Party ballot access case on June 5. The case is Erard v Michigan Secretary of State, 14-1873. The Sixth Circuit had upheld the Michigan law on May 20. It is somewhat encouraging that the court hasn’t already denied the request; often requests for reconsideration are denied within two weeks or so.

The lawsuit challenges the part of the Michigan law that requires approximately twice as many signatures for a new party to get on, compared to the number of votes needed for an old party to remain on. For 2016 a new party needs 31,519 signatures, but in 2016 parties will only need 16,491 votes to remain on. The Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Green, Constitution, and Natural Law Parties are already on.

Erard is a pro se litigant, so he can only represent himself. Therefore the Socialist Party is not a co-plaintiff, but the court has never suggested that Erard (a past Socialist Party nominee for public office) has a standing problem.

On July 21, the South Dakota Libertarian Party and the South Dakota Constitution Party filed an amended complaint in their lawsuit against the South Dakota deadline for a new party to get on the ballot. The case had been filed on June 15 to challenge the March 1 deadline that the legislature had passed this year, as part of SB 69. After the case was filed, opponents SB 69 filed a referendum petition, which suspends SB 69 until the voters vote on it in November 2016.

In response to the referendum petition, the state filed a brief saying the lawsuit should be dismissed, because the issue of the March 1 deadline may be moot if the voters reject the new law.

The two political parties have now responded by saying they also believe the original March 29 deadline is unconstitutionally early. The March 29 deadline was passed in 2007 and was in effect until SB 69 passed. Technically the March 29 deadline is still in effect, at least for the 2016 election. Before 2007, the deadline had been in April. No one had previously challenged the March 29 deadline in court.

The judge will soon decide whether the plaintiffs are permitted to amend their complaint at this stage of the lawsuit. It is likely that she will permit the new Complaint to be admitted.