On September 9, the Michigan Supreme Court refused to hear the Democratic Party’s appeal in West v Michigan Secretary of State. The two lower levels of state court hade kept Cornel West on the ballot. The Secretary of State accepted those decisions, but the Democratic Party had intervened in the caes and had filed an appeal. The issue was whether some paperwork had been properly notarized. The lower courts had ruled that the paperwork wasn’t even needed, so any problem with notarization was not relevant.

The Democratic Party had also argued that some of the voters who signed the West petition had been deceived by the circulators.

On September 3, the Indiana Green Party asked for rehearing en banc in the Seventh Circuit, in the party’s ballot access case. Indiana Green Party v Morales, 23-2756. Both the U.S. District Court and the Seventh Circuit had upheld the 2% petition requirement even though the state had presented no evidence in support of the law, and even though the party had submitted a great deal of evidence. That evidence, which is uncontested, establishes that no statewide independent petition, or petition for an unqualified party nominee, can succeed without the expenditure of approximately $500,000.

The Seventh Circuit said it is obvious that 2% petitions are constitutional, even though federal courts in Arkansas, Michigan, North Dakota, and South Dakota have struck down similar petition requirements. The Seventh Circuit decision did not mention any of these precedents.

UPDATE: here is the request for reconsideration.

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.