Iowa Moves Presidential Independent Petition Deadline from August to June, and Stiffens Definition of a Qualified Party

On June 2, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed HF 954, an omnibus election law bill. It moves the petition deadline for independent presidential candidates, and the presidential nominees of unqualified parties, from August to June. Also it changes the definition of a qualified party from a group that polled 2% for the office at the top of the ticket (president/governor) at the last election, to one that polled 2% at each of the last three elections.

No state has ever before required a group to meet the vote test three elections in a row. That would mean that if by some oddity either the Democratic or Republican Party ever failed to poll 2% for Governor or President, it couldn’t get its qualified status back for six years. In Williams v Rhodes, in 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the constitution does not permit a state to discriminate against new parties, relative to old parties, so a case could be made that the new law is unconstitutional.

The bill moves the petition deadline for non-presidential independent candidates, and the nominees of unqualified parties, from March to June. However, that was only done because in 2018, the old March petition deadlines had been held unconstitutional, and were not being enforced.

The bill also bans ranked choice voting, and adds a sore loser law to the election code. The bill had passed the House by 65-31, and the Senate by 32-15.

U.S. Supreme Court Doesn’t Decide on Whether to Hear Pennsylvania Case on Validity of Ballots

On June 2, the U.S. Supreme Court revealed that it had postponed deciding on whether to hear Republican National Committee v Genser, 24-786. The Court will consider it again at its June 5 conference. This is the case in which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had ruled that if a voter forgets to list the date on the outer envelope (so that the ballot is invalid), that same party may then vote provisionally.

The Republican Party argues in the U.S. Supreme Court that state courts should not be allowed to rule on election lawsuits involving congressional elections.

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case on Whether Candidates Have Standing to Challenge Laws on When Ballots Must be Received

On June 2, the U.S. Supreme Court revealed that on May 29, it had decided to hear Bost v Illinois State Board of Elections, 24-568. The original issue in the case had been a challenge to the 2005 Illinois law that allowed postal ballots to be counted if they had been received after election day, but had been postmarked by election day. The lower federal courts had held that the plaintiffs, who were Republican Party nominees for U.S. House and presidential elector, did not have standing to challenge the law. Here is the cert petition.

The plaintiffs are only asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that candidates do have standing to challenge election laws; they are not asking the Court to decide the original issue of whether states can count ballots that arrive after election day. Assuming the Court rules in favor of standing for candidates, that would be helpful to plaintiffs in many types of election law lawsuits.

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear New York Ballot Access Case

On June 2, the U.S. Supreme Court revealed that at its May 29 conference, it had decided not to hear Meadors v Erie County Board of Elections, 24-684. Thus the Court continues its 34-year practice of refusing to hear all cert petitions filed by minor parties and independent candidates on ballot access. The case had been filed to challenge the May petition deadline in New York, which has existed since 2019. Previous to 2019 it had been August.

Because the Second Circuit had refused to decide the constitutionality of the May petition deadline, it is very likely that a new challenge to that deadline will be filed. The Green Party and the Libertarian Party will probably challenge it in connection with the 2026 election. The deadline makes it impossible to petition during the summer of election years, when there are many outdoor venues of crowds, which helps petitioning.