The lawsuit filed by the Constitution, Green and Libertarian Parties of Alabama has been docketed. It is Stein v Chapman, middle district, 2:12-cv-42. It was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge William K. Watkins, a Bush Jr. appointee. The lawsuit challenges the requirement that for a minor party to appear on the ballot in 2012, it must submit 44,829 valid signatures by March 13. The case is especially strong because it concerns a presidential election. Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court issued Anderson v Celebrezze in 1983, no ballot access petition deadline for parties or independent presidential candidates has ever been upheld, if it was earlier than May of the election year. UPDATR: here is the complaint.

Alabama will probably defend itself by saying that the minor parties are free to put their presidential candidates on the November ballot using the easier independent candidate petition method, but in 1974 the U.S. Supreme Court said in Storer v Brown that the minor party and independent candidate approaches to politics are “entirely different” and states must have constitutional procedures for both. In Alabama, candidates who use the independent candidate petition cannot print a party label on the ballot, other than the word “independent.” Also the Alabama independent presidential petition procedure does not permit stand-in presidential candidates.

The hearing in Perry v Judd was held on the morning of January 13, and is now concluded. Here is a story about the oral argument. The story describes the arguments made by each side, but says nothing about any comments or questions from the judge. The opinion is likely to be released quickly. One of the most interesting parts of the article quotes Governor Perry’s attorney as saying that Perry spent $91,000 getting, or trying to get, on various presidential primary ballots, and that Virginia accounted for $45,000 of that.

UPDATE: this story says that the judge will rule by the end of January 13. The story also mentions that the hearing lasted four hours.

Since 1999, parties may be ballot-qualified in Florida simply by showing the state that they are organized. However, in 2011 the legislature passed a bill that imposes stricter requirements for being organized. The Secretary of State has now ruled that many parties that were previously organized no longer meet the requirements. The number of qualified parties last autumn was 34, but currently there are 15.

Among the parties that are still active, but which don’t enjoy qualified status, are the Prohibition Party, the Socialist Party, and the Socialist Workers Party. At any time, however, these parties or any parties are free to re-file. The new rules are not intrinsically difficult, but they are very detailed and fussy. For example, the Prohibition Party filing was rejected for these reasons: (1) no provision was made for the party to raise and expend funds; (2) the filing says that Roberts Rules of Order “will be the basic guide”, but the filing was supposed to say that Roberts Rules of Order (or any other authority on procedure) will be the “governing guide for all meetings”; (3) the submission doesn’t explain how the party will fill a vacancy in its nominations for public office; (4) the submission says the posting of party meetings will be posted on the national party’s web page, but the law says notice of meetings must be on the state party’s web page; (5) the submission doesn’t say if the listed officers are “state officers” or “state executive committee officers”; (6) the submission doesn’t explain clearly who elects the officers of the state executive committee; (7) the submission doesn’t explain how the party will conduct campaigns.

The parties that are currently qualified are: Americans Elect, Constitution, Democratic, Ecology, Florida Pirate, Florida Whig, Green, Independence, Independent Party, Libertarian, Objectivist, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Reform, Republican, and Tea. The Conservative Party seems to be in limbo: it hasn’t made any filing under the new law, and the Secretary of State’s letters to the party have been returned by the post office, but the state seems to have retained the existence of the party because the party owes thousands of dollars in fines for not having made financial reports