The Eleventh Circuit has set a briefing schedule for Stein v Secretary of State of Alabama, 13-15556. This is the case in which the Constitution, Green, and Libertarian Parties challenge the March petition deadline for new parties to submit approximately 44,000 valid signatures, in presidential election years. The parties’ opening brief is due January 14.

The Eleventh Circuit has three ballot access cases. Besides the Stein case, it has the challenge to Alabama’s special election petition requirements, and the Georgia case filed by the Green and Constitution Parties over the number of signatures required for President. The Eleventh Circuit includes Alabama, Florida, and Georgia.

The only other circuit with that many cases of interest to minor parties and independents is the Ninth Circuit. It has the Peace & Freedom Party case over whether Peta Lindsay should have been allowed on the party’s presidential primary ballot; the Libertarian-Green case over Arizona’s voter registration form that lists only the Democratic and Republican Parties; and a challenge to Alaska’s ban on out-of-state petitioners.

The December 11 New York Times carries a letter to the editor from Peter Bartelmus of New York. The letter advocates a multi-party system for the United States. An editors’ note underneath the letter says, “We invite readers to respond briefly by Thursday for the Sunday Dialogue. We plan to publish responses and a rejoinder in the Sunday Review. Email: letters@nytimes.com.

On December 9, the state of Nevada filed this brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Republican Party of Nevada v Miller, 13-442. The issue is whether the plaintiffs who filed the case in 2012 had standing. They included some voters who said they have voted for “None of these candidates” in the past, and intend to do so in the future, and who say if “None of these candidates” actually wins a primary or an election, they want that win to actually have a consequence. Another set of plaintiffs were two Republican candidates for presidential elector in 2012.

The state’s brief defends the Ninth Circuit opinion which said that all plaintiffs lack standing. The state’s brief also has an interesting account of the history of Nevada’s “none of these candidates” law, and mentions the relatively few instances when “none of these candidates” got the most votes even though there were at least two candidates in the primary or election. “None of these candidates” is only printed on Nevada ballots for statewide office, nor district or local office.