On August 26, five presidential elector candidates in New Jersey who are pledged to Shiva Ayyadurai for president filed a federal ballot access lawsuit, Sias v New Jersey Secretary of State, 3:24cv-08747. The New Jersey Secretary of State had determined that the petition had enough valid signatures, but the candidate was removed after he was challenged on the grounds that he was born in India.

On September 6, U.S. District Court Judge Michael A. Shipp, an Obama appointee, expedited the case. The Defendants’ brief is due September 9. The reply brief is due September 13.

The case is similar to the Wisconsin case filed by electors for Ayyadurai. It says that the true candidates in November are presidential elector candidates, not presidential and vice-presidential candidates. It says that the candidates for elector meet all qualifications and therefore they should be on the ballot. Furthermore, it says the challengers did not notify the elector candidates of the challnege, and did not serve them, so the challenge is invalid. Here is the Complaint.

The Moscow Times has this story about repressive ballot access laws in Russia. It is authored by Yelena Kotyonochkina, a former Moscow municipal deputy who now lives outside Russia.

The Moscow Times was formerly a print and on-line newspaper in Russia,, but it has been banned by the government and now is an on-line newspaper situated outside Russia.

On September 6, the Nevada Supreme Court voted 5-2 to remove the Green Party from the ballot. Nevada State Democratic Party v Nevada Green Party, 24 OC 00107.1B. The lower court had kept the party on the ballot. Here is the 18-page opinion.

When the Green Party began its petition drive, the Nevada Secretary of State furnished a sample form. But, the Nevada Secretary of State sent an incorrect version. The petition blank should have contained a sentence saying the circulator attests that, to his or her belief, all the signatures were of registered voters. The petition blank for initiatives does not have such a requirement. Furthermore the requirement that this sentence be included is not mentioned in the election law; it is only a regulation.

The court majority acknowledges that the Secretary of State’s error was responsible, and says it was an “unfortunate mistake.” The majority acknowledges that Nevada precedent says substantial compliance is good enough. As the dissent points out, the missing sentence serves no useful purpose, because all the signatures were checked anyway and there were easily enough valid signatures.

This is an especially painful blow for the Green Party, because it almost certainly would have polled enough votes for one of its nominees to keep its spot on the ballot. Furthermore the decision completely eliminates the ability of Nevada voters to cast a vote for Jill Stein, because Nevada bans write-in votes.