It has now been 18 months since the Libertarian Party National Committee sued the Federal Election Commission, over the FEC’s refusal to let the Libertarian Party have full access to a bequest made to the party. The bequest was made by Raymond Burrington, who died on April 26, 2007. He had left $217,734 to the party. The FEC has interpreted federal campaign laws to mean that the party cannot receive the bequest all in one year. Instead, the money can only be given to the party by the estate at the rate of approximately $30,000 per year, because the law limits living donors to giving that much to a national political party every calendar year.

The two sides have been arguing over which court should hear the case. Because the Libertarian Party takes the position that it should be able to use the bequest in support of its nominees for federal office, as well as for general party expenses, the original 3-judge panel appointed earlier was dissolved. The federal campaign law passed in 1974 says “substantial” legal challenges to federal contribution limits to candidates must be heard by an en banc panel of all the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals. If the case is not “substantial”, then a single U.S. District Court Judge can dismiss the case. The two sides have been battling over whether the case presents a “substantial” issue.

The FEC argues the case should be dismissed because no important constitutional rights are at stake, and that “the deceased have no constitutional rights.” The party counters that this case is about the rights of the party to receive the money.

The FEC says if the Libertarian Party wins the case, there is a danger of corruption because wealthy individuals could try to obtain favors from elected members of Congress, and/or from the President, by promising to leave a large bequest to that politician’s political party. Of course, this argument seems to validate the party’s argument that this case is “substantial.”

Politics1 has this very useful chart, showing which presidential candidates are on the ballot in each state. The chart also includes write-in filing. Of course, the deadline for filing for write-in status in most states is still in the future, so that part of the chart isn’t complete.

It is very difficult to be perfectly accurate. BAN believes the Politics1 chart, as last updated on September 14, has these errors: for Stewart Alexander, Ohio should be shown as on, and Iowa should not be shown as on. For Virgil Goode, Kansas and Oregon should not be shown as on, and New Hampshire should have a question mark. For the list of those candidates who don’t fit on the chart: for Colorado, Randall Terry only has write-in status so his name should not be in bold; for Utah, Nelson Keyton only has write-in status so his name should not be in bold; for Louisiana, Andre Barnett should not be listed. Also Kansas should list Chuck Baldwin. Although it is conceivable that the Kansas Reform Party could still change its nomination from Baldwin to Goode, this appears very unlikely.

There are four presidential candidates who are on the ballot in three states: Roseanne Barr, Tom Hoefling, Merlin Miller, and Randall Terry. The chart gives Barr and Hoefling their own column but puts the other two at the bottom of the chart.

There are 27 individuals who are running for President and who are listed on the ballot in at least one state. The previous record was 23, which occurred in both 2008 and 1992. For purposes of this statistic, when a party has a presidential candidate who doesn’t meet the constitutional qualifications to be President, and therefore has a stand-in in some states but not other states, that is counted as one candidate, not two. Thanks to Darryl Perry for the link.

At least seven states cannot print ballots yet because of unresolved questions about the ballot. Here is an article explaining that Connecticut must wait until the State Supreme Court decides which party should be listed first on the ballot.

New York can’t print any ballots until the Independence Party chooses a presidential candidate, which it will probably do on September 20, the New York state deadline for that.

At least six Colorado counties can’t print ballots until a federal court decides whether bar codes should be on ballots.

Pennsylvania doesn’t know yet for sure whether the Libertarian statewide candidates will be on the ballot or not. In Pennsylvania, when a challenge process is still pending, it is customary for some ballots to be printed with the challenged candidates listed, and then to mark them off if the challenge goes against them.

New Hampshire won’t print any ballots until the Ballot Law Commission decides whether Virgil Goode should be listed as the Constitution Party nominee for President. That will be decided by the Ballot Law Commission on September 20.

Kansas won’t print any ballots until the challenge to President Obama’s qualifications is resolved.

This list isn’t necessarily complete, and does not try to deal with Michigan. Federal law requires overseas absentee ballots to be mailed no later than September 22.