May 2 was the deadline for Florida candidates to file a declaration of candidacy and the filing fee, for Congress. Here is a link to the candidate list. There are six U.S. House districts without a Democratic-Republican contest: Democrats failed to file anyone in four districts, and Republicans in two districts. By comparison, in 2012, there were also six U.S. House districts without a Democratic-Republican contest.

In 2014, there are Libertarians in two districts; in 2012, there was a Libertarian in only one district. No other parties are running any candidates for Congress.

In 2014, seven districts have independent candidates; in 2012, there were twelve districts with independent candidates. In the 13th district, the Democratic Party is supporting an independent candidate, Ed Jany. The order of the candidates on the November ballot in the 13th district will be: Republican David W. Jolly, Libertarian Lucas Overby, independent Ed Jany.

For state office, the deadline is not until June. Nevertheless, many candidates for state office have already filed, and they are also on the state’s web page. For the statewide races, so far, the Libertarian, Socialist, and Independent Parties each have a candidate for Governor. Libertarians have a candidate for Attorney General, the first minor party candidate for that office in the ballot since 1912. There are two Libertarians running against each other for Governor, John Wayne Smith and Adrian Wyllie, so the state will hold a statewide minor party primary for the first time in Florida history.

Kentucky law says the list of registered voters is public information. However, in 2013, the legislature passed a law saying the names and the temporary addresses of absentee voters cannot be released until after the election is over. On May 1, a U.S. District Court refused to enjoin the law, in a lawsuit filed by a Republican candidate for the legislature.

The candidate, Deborah Sheldon, wanted the list of absentee voters before the primary, so she could mail campaign literature to them. She reasoned that people who have gone to the trouble of ordering an absentee ballot are especially likely to vote. She filed a federal lawsuit, alleging that the First Amendment protects her right to get the list. However, Judge David L. Bunning said that the First Amendment, by itself, has never been interpreted to mean that the government must disclose any particular type of information.

The state argued that the list should not be released, partly because southeastern Kentucky has a recent tradition of vote-buying. Individuals who bribe voters to vote a certain way are especially advantaged when voters vote absentee, because then the vote-buyer can watch the voter mark the ballot. The decision says that if the candidate has a right to the list, then it follows that everyone else would have a right to the list also. Sheldon v Grimes, eastern district, civ 14-60. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.

Michigan election officials are likely to keep Congressman John Conyers off the August 5 primary ballot, unless he files and wins a lawsuit. See this story, which explains that Michigan law requires circulators for primary candidates to be registered voters. It appears some of Conyers’ circulators weren’t registered voters when they circulated his petition. He needed 1,000 signatures, and he has fewer than 1,000 if the petitions circulated by the apparently unregistered voters are excluded.

As the story says, in 1999 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Buckley v American Constitutional Law Foundation that states cannot require petitioners to be registered voters. Although that case involved initiative petitions, lower courts since 1999 have unanimously ruled that the principle applies to all types of petitions.

In 2009, a U.S. District Court in Michigan ruled, “Overall, the Court finds that the distinctions between the various kinds of petition circulators are not of great significance to the analysis of the burdens posed by registration and residency requirements.” That case struck down a requirement that recall petition circulators must be registered voters. Ironically, in that case, the state of Michigan argued that while a residency requirement and a registration requirement for circulators of candidate petitions is a severe burden, the requirement as applied to recall petitioners is not severe. The Court rejected the state’s argument. That decision is Bogaert v Land, western district, 1:08-cv-687, issued December 17, 2009.

So far, Michigan officials are saying that whereas residency requirements for circulators of independent candidate petitions are unconstitutional, residency requirements for circulators of primary candidates are constitutional. There is no case law to support that conclusion. This year, courts in Pennsylvania and New Jersey have ruled that the principle of Buckley v ACLF applies just as much to primary petitions as to other petitions. Those cases are Villa v Aichele, eastern district of Pennsylvania, 13-6374; and Empower our Neighborhoods v Guadagno, New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer County L-3148-11. Also, in 2000, the Second Circuit struck down a New York residency requirement for circulators involving primary petitions (Lerman v Board of Elections, 232 F 3d 135).

It is true that courts have upheld requirements that primary petition circulators must be members of the same party, but that is not an issue in Michigan. Conyers’ circulators are Democrats, and furthermore Michigan doesn’t have registration by party and there is no formal way for the state to know who is a member of any particular party. Michigan voters choose a primary ballot in the secrecy of the voting booth, except for presidential primaries. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link. UPDATE: see this story, which says a lawsuit is already pending, although it was filed by Robert Davis, rather than Conyers himself. Conyers may intervene in the case.