California Secretary of State Explains Why She is Keeping Peta Lindsay Off Peace & Freedom Party Presidential Primary Ballot

On February 23, California election officials explained for the first time why Peta Lindsay can’t be on the Peace & Freedom Party presidential primary ballot. The Secretary of State instructed county elections officials to tell the Lindsay campaign that she may not appear on the presidential primary ballot because she is under age 35. Lindsay campaign officials tried to pick up petition blanks to add her to the ballot by petition, but county elections officials refused to release the forms.

The Secretary of State still has not explained why she won’t print Stephen Durham on the PFP presidential primary ballot. There is no allegation that he doesn’t meet the constitutional qualifications, yet the Secretary of State won’t print his name on the PFP ballot either. However, no election official seems to be blocking Stephen Durham’s ability to collect the signatures of 1% of PFP registrants, and to get on the ballot that way.

Peta Lindsay is the presidential nominee of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. Stephen Durham is the presidential nominee of the Freedom Socialist Party. Because neither of those two parties is ballot-qualified in California, they are both seeking the presidential nomination of the Peace & Freedom Party, which is ballot-qualified.

Oklahoma Ballot Access Hearing Likely to be First Week in March

The Oklahoma ballot access case, Libertarian Party of Oklahoma et al v Ziriax, will probably have an oral argument during the first week in March. The plaintiffs, who include the Green Party, are seeking injunctive relief against the March 1 petition deadline for new parties. Here is the brief of the plaintiffs, in support of the motion for an injunction.

Maine Legislature is Slow to Amend Public Funding Program

This lengthy newspaper story says that the Maine legislature is moving slowly to fix the state’s public funding program. The law must be amended, to take into account the U.S. Supreme Court decision Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v Bennett, which said that it is unconstitutional to give extra public funding to publicly-funded candidates who have well-funded privately-funded opponents.