On January 14, New York State Senator Mark Walczyk (R-Watertown) introduced S 1870, to ease the definition of a political party and to ease the number of signatures for a statewide independent candidate, or the nominee of an unqualified party. Here is the text.

The bill also moves the petition deadline from May to August, and allows twelve weeks instead of the current six weeks.

The bill defines a qualified party as one that polled 50,000 votes for President and Governor.

It is believed that the same bill will soon be introduced in the Assembly by Assemblymember Ken Blankenbush, who is also a Republican.

On December 27, New York State Senator James Skoufis, in a tweet about the Green Party, said he wants to “go on permanent offense, not just taking up the legal fight during ballot access, but to dismantle these Republican-enables’ infrastructure.” See it here.

He is in his second term representing District 42, centered on Orange County in the Hudson Valley. He is running for Chair of the Democratic National Committee. Thanks to Independent Political Report for the link.

On January 13, the Ninth Circuit heard No Labels Party v Fontes, 24-563. This is the lawsuit filed by No Labels Party to prevent any candidate from filing for congress or state office in the No Labels Party primary. No Labels had won the case in U.S. District Court. No Labels was intended by its founders to be a party that would only participate in the presidential race. It did not want to have any candidates for anything else.

The three judges on the Ninth Circuit panel are Holly A. Thomas, Salvador Mendoza Jr, and Anthony D. Johnstone. All are Biden appointees. All three judges seemed to favor the state’s position. The state’s position is that all qualified parties must nominate by primary, and it would be unfair to the people who signed the Americans Elect petition, and the people who registered into the party, to block candidates for other office.

The judges seemed to feel that it might be different if Americans Elect had told the voters who signed their petition that the party, once it qualified, would not be nominating for congress and state office. The judges felt the party could have challenged the mandatory wording on the party petition, saying that the party would hold a primary, before it started circulating that petition. They also felt that the party would be free to publicly say that they don’t approve of their non-presidential nominees.

Assuming No Labels loses the case, there surely will be No Labels candidates in 2026 for Congress and state office in Arizona, because the party is still ballot-qualified, by virtue of having enough registrants to remain on the ballot. The latest tally shows the party has registration of .74% of the state total, and it needs .667% to remain on the ballot.