On July 21, the Eleventh Circuit judges who are hearing Stein v Bennett informed both sides that this case requires oral argument. All the briefs were filed in February and March 2014. It is obvious that the judges feel this is a close case, and they want an oral argument to help them decide it. Neither side had requested oral argument. The issue is the March petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties in Alabama in presidential election years.

In 1991, the Eleventh Circuit had struck down Alabama’s April petition deadline for newly-qualifying parties, in New Alliance Party of Alabama v Hand. That case involved ballot access for a midterm year. Presidential candidates have more ballot access protection than candidates for other office. The Eleventh Circuit has been especially strong on that point.

But Alabama argues that the 1991 precedent doesn’t control this case because back in 1991, the petition deadline was several months before the primary, and the current deadline sets the petition deadline on primary day. Back in 1991, the Alabama primary was in June, but now (in presidential years) it is in March.

Alabama in 2014 will be one of only three, four, or five states with no minor party or independent candidates on the November ballot for statewide office. The others are California, New Mexico, and possibly New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, depending on whether the Libertarian petition in New Hampshire and the Green petition in Pennsylvania succeed. Also, this year, Alabama will be the only state with only one candidate on the ballot for U.S. Senate.

On July 23, the Peace & Freedom Party, the Libertarian Party of California, and the Green Party of Alameda County filed this 31-page reply brief in Rubin v Bowen, A140387. The case is now fully briefed. In a few months, the State Appeals Court is likely to set a date for oral argument.

On July 3, the California legislature passed SB 1272, which says the following ballot measure will be on the November 2014 ballot: “Shall the Congress of the United States propose, and the California Legislature ratify, an amendment or amendments to the United States Constitution to overturn Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), and other applicable judicial precedents, to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth, may express their views to one another, and to make clear that the rights protected by the United States Constitution are the rights of natural persons only?”

On July 16, Governor Jerry Brown said he would not veto the measure, so it takes effect. However, he refused to sign it, saying it is not a good idea to put ballot measures on the ballot that have no binding effect, and are merely advisory. He said he will veto future measures for advisory questions.

On July 22, a lawsuit was filed with the State Appeals Court, 3rd district, to remove the measure from the ballot. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v Bowen, C076928. The lawsuit points out that in 1984, the California Supreme Court removed an initiative from the ballot that asked the voters if they wish to instruct Congress and the legislature to pass a U.S. Constitutional amendment for a balanced federal budget. The only difference between that case, and the new case, is that the 1984 measure was put on the ballot by the voters, whereas the current measure was put on the ballot by the legislature. Generally the California Constitution treats the voters (acting through the initiative process) as the equivalent of the legislature. Here is the text of the bill that put the current measure on the ballot.