Mitt Romney’s announcement on August 11 that Paul Ryan is his choice for the Republican nomination for vice-president did not end all the suspense about the identity of presidential and vice-presidential nominations. Some ballot-qualified parties still have not chosen their presidential and vice-presidential nominees.

The most important of the parties that haven’t nominated yet, but which will, is the New York Independence Party. That party cannot nominate a presidential candidate until after its new state committee is in place. State committee elections for New York state parties are on September 13. It is considered extremely likely that the Independence Party will nominate President Obama, even though in 2008 it nominated John McCain. In 2004 it had nominated Ralph Nader; in 2000 it had nominated John Hagelin; in 1996 it had nominated Ross Perot. UPODATE: Bill Van Allen points out that New York state now requires qualified parties to submit their list of presidential elector candidates by September 10, so the Independence Party must decide on a presidential nominee before the September 13 primary.

Other parties that are on the ballot in a single state, and which always nominate someone for President, and which haven’t nominated yet, are: (1) Liberty Union in Vermont; (2) Independent Party of Connecticut; (3) Alaskan Independence Party. The Connecticut Independent Party will nominate on August 21. It is not known when the Alaskan Independence Party, or Liberty Union, will nominate. If any reader knows, please comment.

On August 13, Jon Barrie, the Independent American Party nominee for U.S. Senate in New Mexico, filed a lawsuit in New Mexico Supreme Court to obtain a place on the November ballot. The case is Barrie v Duran, no. 33755. Here is the brief. Even though the Independent American Party is a qualified party in New Mexico, and even though it nominated Barrie in a proper state convention, the Secretary of State says he can’t appear on the ballot, for two reasons: (1) he needed 6,028 valid signatures, and he fell short, even though he submitted 10,279; (2) the election code says a party may not nominate someone who wasn’t a registered member of that party early in the year.

UPDATE: the Court has asked the Secretary of State to respond by August 20, and has set a hearing for August 22, at 2 p.m.

The Secretary of State acknowledges that a U.S. District Court said the law mentioned in (2) above is unconstitutional, back in March 2011, in Woodruff v Herrera. But, she is still enforcing it unless another court tells her not to. As to the number of signatures, Barrie’s brief points out many flaws in the state’s signature-verification process. Some signatures were even rejected because the signer “lives outside the district”, which is obviously absurd, since U.S. Senate elections encompass the entire state.

According to Scotusblog, the U.S. Supreme Court may accept some cases for review at the end of August. See here. Normally the Court doesn’t do such things during its summer recess.