On December 13, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion in The League of Women Voters of Florida v The Florida House of Representatives, SC13-951. By a vote of 5-2, the Court ruled that legislators, and legislative staff, can be questioned in court about their motives concerning details of the U.S. House redistricting plan passed in 2012.

The Florida Constitution was amended before the last redistricting process. It now says, “In establishing congressional district boundaries, no apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent.” Article III, sec. 20(a).

The League of Women Voters of Florida believes that the congressional districts drawn up by the legislature were drawn to help the Republican Party, but in order to establish that, the League first sought the ability to force legislators to testify. The League has now won that fight. Since the decision came out, it has come to light that much of the evidence, such as e-mails between legislators and their staffs about redistricting, no longer exists. It is possible that this development might result in new districts being drawn up. See this story.

The Austin Chronicle, the free weekly newspaper for Austin, Texas, here summarizes Libertarian and Green Party activity expected in the 2014 election. Texas has the nation’s earliest congressional primary in 2014. Even though the two ballot-qualified minor parties nominate by convention, rather than by primary, state law forces candidates seeking a convention nomination to file an intent to run in December of the year before the election. The minor party conventions are free to nominate someone else other than the person who filed, but the parties are not permitted to nominate anyone for an office for which no party member had filed.

The Ninth Circuit has scheduled oral arguments in Peace & Freedom Party v Bowen for Thursday, February 13, in San Francisco. The issue is whether the Secretary of State should have listed Peta Lindsay on the party’s presidential primary ballot in 2012. Lindsay is under age 35.

The issue of whether California should print the names of candidates on the ballot who don’t meet the constitutional qualifications is very confused. In 2012, the California Court of Appeals ruled in Fuller v Bowen, 203 Cal App 4th 1476, that election officials do not have the authority to judge the qualifications of candidates for state legislature. The court said the Secretary of State was correct to list a particular Republican candidate for State Senate on the ballot, even though he admitted he had not lived in the district for a full year before filing. The court said only the legislature can judge the qualifications of candidates.

Also, in 2010, the same California Court of Appeals ruled that the Secretary of State should not investigate the qualifications of candidates for president. The decision in Keyes v Bowen, 189 Cal App 4th 647, says, “With respect to general elections, section 6901 directs that the Secretary of State must place on the ballot the names of the several political parties’ candidates.” The word “must” is in italics.

Yet in the Peace & Freedom case, the U.S. District Court ruled that because Lindsay admits she does not meet the qualifications, the Secretary of State was correct to keep her off the ballot. Long ago, in 1892, California printed the name of the Prohibition Party’s vice-presidential nominee on the ballot even though he was under age 35. Also, in 1972, the California Secretary of State permitted Linda Jenness to be a qualified write-in presidential candidate, even though she was under age 35.