Thirty-five states, including North Carolina, provide that a presidential candidate who is not on the ballot may file to have his or her write-ins counted. The vast majority of the deadlines for doing that are in October. North Carolina, somewhat irrationally, says the declaration is due in early August. North Carolina also requires 500 valid signatures to file for declared write-in status. The Green Party is somewhat likely to sue to get more time to file for write-in presidential status. North Carolina is in the 4th circuit, and the 4th circuit is protective of write-in candidates. In 1989 it struck down Maryland’s law that required declared write-in candidates to pay a filing fee of $290. That case is Dixon v Maryland State Administrative Board of Election Laws, 878 F.2d 776. Also in 2000, a U.S. District Court in West Virginia followed the Dixon precedent and struck down the West Virginia law that required write-in candidates to pay filing fees.

On February 7, the Arizona Supreme Court had issued a two-page order in Escamilla v Cuello, cv-12-39, agreeing with the lower court that Alejandrina Cabrera should be kept off the ballot for City Council of San Luis, Arizona. On August 20, the Supreme Court finally explained its reasoning. Here is the 15-page opinion. The Court agreed with the lower court that the candidate, whose primary language is Spanish, does not have enough skill with English to serve in office. Thanks to Mark Brown for this news.

San Luis is on the Mexican border.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Jones will hear Townley v State of Nevada on Wednesday, August 22, at 10 a.m., in Reno. This is the lawsuit over “None of the above” (actually, in Nevada, it is “None of These Candidates”). Plaintiffs argue that if that option appears on the ballot, the law must make it binding. In other words, if Nevada is going to have a “NOTA” then if “NOTA” gets the most votes, no one is elected. The argument is highly theoretical, but is based on the definition of “vote” and the need to treat all votes equally.

Some of the Republican presidential elector candidates are plaintiffs, and plaintiffs argue that if “NOTA” is not binding, then it should be removed from the ballot. Under current Nevada law, “NOTA” only appears on primary and general election ballots for statewide office, not for U.S. House or legislature or local office. Judge Jones is a Bush Jr. appointee.