On December 20, a Montana lower state court struck down an initiative passed in 2012 that orders Montana legislators to work for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. The recent Montana case is Rickert v McCulloch, Lewis and Clark County, cdv-2012-1003.

The initiative said, in part, “Montana’s congressional delegation is charged with proposing a joint resolution offering an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that accomplishes the following: (a) overturns the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v FEC; (b) establishes that corporations are not human beings with constitutional rights; (c) establishes that campaign contributions or expenditures by corporations, whether to candidates or ballot issues, may be prohibited by a political body at any level of government; and (d) accomplishes the goals of Montanans in achieving a level playing field in election spending.”

The recent decision depends on a 1984 Montana Supreme Court opinion, State ex rel Harper v Waltermire, which struck down an initiative that ordered Montana legislators to work for a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The recent decision upholds the part of the initiative that says that the voters find that “unlimited corporate donations creates a dominating impact on the Montana political process and inevitably minimizes the impact of individual Montana citizens.” However, it should be noted that Citizens United v FEC did not hold that corporations may make contributions to candidates; it said they can make independent expenditures.

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether to hear Republican Party of Nevada v Miller, 13-442, at its January 10, 2014 conference. This is the case over whether the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the inclusion of “None of these candidates” on Nevada primary and general election ballots, for statewide office. The Ninth Circuit had said none of the plaintiffs have standing. The plaintiffs include some Republican candidates for presidential elector in the 2012 election.

Five minor parties have filed an amicus curiae brief in this case, urging the court to take the case to recognize more standing for political parties. They are the Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Independent American, and America’s Parties.

The original case was filed to challenge “None of these candidates” on the basis that voters who choose this option are being discriminated against, because if “None of these candidates” wins, there is no consequence. Whichever candidate gets the most votes wins, regardless of the vote total for “None of these candidates.”

On December 23, the Hawaii Attorney General held a press conference to announce his formal opinion 13-2. It says that new or previously unqualified parties can have their party label on the ballot (next to the name of their presidential candidate) when they use the independent presidential petition procedure. That procedure has a very permissive September deadline. Previously it was generally understood that candidates who used that procedure could only have the label “Non-partisan” on the ballot.

The Attorney General’s press release credits the lawsuit filed by the Justice Party last year for causing his office to issue this opinion. The press release says the Elections Office had been interpreting the law to print party labels for candidates who use the independent presidential procedure, all along. But it was more ambiguous than the press release suggests, because no group or candidate had completed the September independent presidential petition in Hawaii since 1992. States often re-interpret their laws, when the previous precedent was long ago.

For example, in 2013, Kansas re-interpreted its law on how a party remains on the ballot in years when President is the only office on the ballot. The former Secretary of State had ruled in 2000 that parties need not poll 1% for President in order to remain on. But the current Secretary of State reversed that, and removed the Reform Party from the ballot in 2013.

Also in 2013, New Mexico re-interpreted its law on how a party remains on the ballot. The new rule is that parties only get one election when they petition for ballot access. But the former Secretary of State had permitted a party to be on the ballot for two elections.

Also, in 2008, Massachusetts re-interpreted its law on whether unqualified parties can substitute a new presidential or vice-presidential candidate, when the candidate listed on the petition withdraws. The new ruling was to deny substitution, even though in 1996 and 2000 and 2004, the state had permitted it.

And, in 2012, Michigan re-interpreted its understanding of whether the sore loser law applies to the presidential primary. In 1980 the state did not believe the sore loser law applied to presidential primaries, but in 2012, it changed that interpretion.