On September 5, U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras, from the District of Columbia district, issued an 18-page decision about debates. The case is La Botz v Federal Election Commission, 11-1247. It says that the FEC was wrong to have dismissed a complaint filed by the 2010 Socialist Party’s U.S. Senate candidate in Ohio, Dan La Botz. La Botz had been denied participation in the U.S. Senate candidate debates, which were restricted to only the Democratic and Republican nominees. The debates had been sponsored by a consortium of eight Ohio newspapers, which are corporations. FEC rules provide that debates sponsored by for-profit corporations may exclude some candidates, but the debate sponsors must have predetermined, objective criteria as to whom should be invited.

When La Botz was refused entry to the debates, he complained to the FEC, which dismissed his complaint, even though it appeared that the debate sponsors had no objective criteria when they planned the debates. The ruling says the FEC must re-examine the case. The decision also says the case is not moot, because (1) La Botz has said he intends to run for public office in the future; (2) even if he hadn’t said that, it is likely that similar cases involving other minor party and independent candidates will arise in the future in Ohio.

The only independent candidate who tried to get on the Wyoming ballot for President this year was Jill Stein. However, the Secretary of State has determined that she didn’t have enough valid signatures. Wyoming requires a petition of 2% of the last Congressional vote, which is tied for being the second-highest presidential petition requirement in the nation. Only Oklahoma has a higher percentage for President, when the easier of both methods (party and independent) for each state are compared.

An independent candidate for U.S. House also tried to get on the Wyoming ballot this year, but his petition was also found invalid.

On September 4, a candidate for Anaheim, California city council won a lawsuit over whether he could use “Chavez” as part of his name on the ballot. See this story. The tentative ruling had said he could not use “Chavez” but the judge changed his opinion after receiving more evidence about the candidate’s use of his full name. The case has important implications if the candidate wins, because Anaheim is under attack for its at-large city council elections, which have never produced a Hispanic city councilmember.