On May 20, the Sixth Circuit upheld the aspect of Michigan ballot access laws for new parties that requires newly-qualifying parties to submit approximately twice as many signatures as the number of votes needed for an established party to remain on the ballot. Erard v Michigan Secretary of State, 14-1873.

The decision is only eight pages and does not even mention the two precedents that say states cannot require more signatures for a new party than it requires votes for an old party. Those precedents are the U.S. Supreme Court decision Williams v Rhodes, and a 3-judge U.S. District Court decision from Massachusetts in 1972 called Baird v Davorem.

In Williams v Rhodes, the U.S. Supreme Court said that Ohio was violating the constitution by requiring a 15% (of the last gubernatorial vote) for new parties, but only a 10% vote for an old party to stay on the ballot In Baird v Davorem, the federal court in Massachusetts struck down Massachusetts law that required a 3% petition (of the last gubernatorial vote) for a new party’s nominees, but kept old parties on the ballot if they continued to receive one-tenth of 1% of the vote for Governor.

The Sixth Circuit wouldn’t even grant an oral argument in this case. The decision is per curiam and is signed by Judges R. Guy Cole and Ronald Gilman (Clinton appointees) and Jeffrey Sutton (a Bush Jr. appointee). The case had been filed by a pro se activist from the Socialist Party. Michigan and Kansas are the only two states in which the number of signatures for a new party to get on is greater than the number of votes for an old party to stay on. The Plaintiff, Matt Erard, will ask for reconsideration.

On May 20, Fox News announced the rules on who will be invited into the August 6, 2015 Republican presidential debate. Also on May 20, CNN announced the rules for the September 16 debate. The Republican National Committee had earlier decided not to set any rules, and to let the networks sponsoring the debates make the rules.

The August 6 Fox debate will invite the top ten candidates, as measured by polls. The CNN September 16 debates will be in two parts. One will be for the top ten candidates, as shown by polls. The other debate will be for those who weren’t included in the first debate but who are at least 1% in polls. See this story.

Earlier in the day, Newt Gingrich had said in a news interview that he believed the party should include all the candidates, even if that meant holding two debates, with candidates randomly put in one or the other. See this story.

Hillary Clinton has said recently that all states should allow ex-felons to register to vote. Although most other leading Democratic Party office-holders probably agree with her, it is noteworthy that she has expressed this idea publicly. Generally major party presidential candidates don’t mention the issue. See this story. The story also shows which states would be most altered if ex-felons could register.

Hillary Clinton said on June 10, 2007, in Ames, Iowa, that she would consider debating some minor party or independent presidential candidates in the general election, if she were the Democratic nominee. She said, “Well, I would certainly be open to doing it. You know, there might be a couple of people that I would be a little bit reluctant about, but, you know, I am generally open to that. You know in New York we have a lot of parties; we don’t just have the Democratic and Republican Party, we have a lot of other parties. And, I believe in free and open debate. So, I will certainly consider it. I’m not going to make a 100% commitment, because it’s a hypothetical, and I try to stay away from hypotheticals. But I take your point and I think that it’s a very important one that we need to get as many people involves as possible, and that means having a lot of opinions out there that people can respond to.” This answer was obtained by Larry Reinsch, who had asked her the question.