On July 24, the Sixth Circuit heard forty minutes of oral argument in Libertarian Party of Ohio v Husted, 11-4066, the ballot access case won by the Libertarian Party in 2011. The Ohio Secretary of State had not appealed, but the Ohio legislature then intervened and did appeal. The issue had been the constitutionality of the February 2012 petition deadline for new parties, a deadline that no longer exists because of actions taken by the legislature during 2012. The statutory deadline for a newly-qualifying party is again in November of the year before the election (in presidential years), the same deadline that was struck down in the Sixth Circuit in 2006.

The three judges seemed to think the case is moot, and the only real suspense seems to be whether the Sixth Circuit lets the 2011 decision of the U.S. District Court stand, or whether the Sixth Circuit vacates it, which means it is as though the decision never existed. Practically speaking, the Libertarian Party will not be removed from the November 2012 ballot in any event. Of course it would be better if the U.S. District Court decision is allowed to continue to exist as a precedent.

Seventeen people were in the audience.

On July 24, the Georgia Green Party and the Georgia Constitution Party filed a request for reconsideration in their ballot access case, which is called Green Party of Georgia v State of Georgia and Brian Kemp. U.S. District Court Judge Richard W. Story had last week dismissed the case before the state had even filed its answer.

The reconsideration request points out that the case involves presidential ballot access. Judge Story had dismissed the case, because Georgia ballot access for other office has been upheld before, and Judge Story had cited three cases relating to ballot access for Governor and Congress. The request for reconsideration points out that the U.S. Supreme Court had said in 1983 that states have less interest in keeping presidential candidates off the ballot, than candidates for other office. The request for reconsideration also points out that the Eleven Circuit had said the same thing in Bergland v Harris in 1985. Georgia is in the Eleventh Circuit.

On July 23, U.S. District Court Judge William Zloch of Florida heard arguments in LaCasa and Mazzilli v Townsley, 12-cv-22432, southern district. This is the case filed by some Florida voters who aren’t Democrats but who want to vote in the Democratic primary for Miami-Dade State Attorney, a partisan race. They argue that they should be allowed to vote in the Democratic primary because the only candidates who filed to have their names on any primary or general election ballot are two Democrats. They argue that they won’t have had any voice in the selection unless they can vote in the Democratic primary for that office.

Florida law would let non-Democrats vote in that primary, if indeed there were only Democrats running. But there are two write-in candidates running in November for that office, so the open primary law doesn’t apply to this race (the law only applies when the only candidates, of any kind, are from the same party; one of the write-ins is a Republican). The voters argue that the write-in candidates have no real campaign, and that they probably only filed in order to keep this particular primary closed. Judge Zloch asked the attorney for the voters if write-in candidates can theoretically win, and the reluctant response was that, yes, in theory write-in candidates can win. The judge said he would rule on July 24, or early on July 25.