On Monday, March 23, U.S. District Court Judge Elizabeth Dillon heard oral argument in Adams v Alcorn, w.d., 5:15cv-12.  The lawsuit had been filed on February 25, 21015, by the Republican Party Committee for the 24th State Senate district.  The Committee hopes to invalidate the Virginia law that lets incumbents who are running for re-election decide whether the party nominates by primary or convention in that incumbent’s race.

Here is a newspaper story describing the hearing.  Apparently four attorneys, each representing distinct interests, argued.  The Republican Party has an attorney who argued; the state has an attorney who argued in defense of the state law; the incumbent State Senator had an attorney representing his interests; and a Republican candidate who wants to run against the incumbent had his attorney.

The newspaper story does not say anything about how Judge Elizabeth Dillon reacted to the arguments.

On March 23, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Walker v Texas Division of Sons of Confederate Veterans, 14-144.  Texas lets hundreds of organizations, as well as commercial establishments like restaurants, arrange for automobile license plates that carry the emblem or insignia of that organization or business.  But Texas won’t let the Sons of Confederate Veterans have its own license plates.

During the oral argument, four times, one justice or another wanted to know if the U.S. Constitution would let Texas issue specialty plates for the Republican Party and yet refuse such plates for the Democratic Party.  The attorney for the state of Texas consistently said that would not violate the First Amendment, but that it probably would violate the Due Process Clause or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Here the transcript.  There is a reference to political parties on page 7-9, 24-25, and 56.

This editorial from Bloomberg News argues that the first general election presidential debate should include every candidate who is on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win the election.  The editorial says that subsequent debates that year should be somewhat more restrictive, with public opinion after the first debate shaping who is invited into the subsequent debates.

In all U.S. history, there has never been a presidential election with more than 7 candidates who could theoretically have won.  This is true even for the period before there were government-printed ballots.  Before there were government ballots, minor parties can still be evaluated, in retrospect, by how many states in which they printed up private ballots and distributed them to voters.

Years with 7 candidates who would have qualified, under the Bloomberg News standard, are 1976 and 2000.  Years in which six would have qualified are 1900, 1904, 1908, 1912, 1932, 1936, 1980, 1996, 2004, and 2008.