On June 12, the Michigan Republican Party filed this response to the Sixth Circuit, in Libertarian Party of Michigan v Johnson, 12-2153. The Republican Party had been allowed to intervene on the side of the state. The issue is whether Michigan’s sore loser law does apply to presidential primaries. As is typical of the state’s earlier briefs in this case, and the Republican Party’s earlier briefs, no mention is made of the fact that the U.S. Constitution, Article II, and the election laws of all 50 states, make it clear that the true candidates in November are the candidates for presidential elector.

The Republican Party’s main point is that the issue is not important enough to justify granting a rehearing. The Republican Party also continues to emphasize that the Libertarian Party was somewhat slow in the summer of 2012 to get its briefs filed. But the Republican Party doesn’t really rebut the other arguments of the Libertarian Party, which include these points: (1) it makes no sense to prohibit a presidential “sore loser” from being the nominee of a ballot-qualified party given that Michigan permits presidential “sore losers” to be independent candidates; (2) Michigan’s law was already interpreted in 1980 not to apply to presidential primaries.

The state’s brief makes similar arguments.

Seth Masket is a political scientist who has studied polarization and partisanship in state government for many years. Here is a new column by Masket about how Califoria’s top-two primary worked in practice last year. As he notes, it has increased the power of the major party organizations to determine who is permitted to run in November.

Two New York city councilmembers, Brad Lander and Gale Brewer, are introducing a proposed charter amendment for New York city Mayoral elections. It would provide for Ranked Choice Voting in partisan primaries for Mayor. See this story. Thanks to Michael Drucker for the news. The proposal, even if enacted, would not be in effect until 2017.