Here is the September 20, 2012 decision of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court in the case over whether the Libertarian Party statewide petition is valid. The case name is In Re: Nomination Papers of Margaret K. Robertson for President, no. 507 MD 2012 (the case has that name because Margaret Robertson was the stand-in presidential candidate).

This decision was of course very helpful to the Libertarian Party in Pennsylvania, but it will be helpful in future petition drives all across the United States. The decision interprets federal law to mean that, at least in federal elections, states must accept signatures as valid if the signer had moved, and signed with the new address, but still hadn’t re-registered and is still listed on the voter registration rolls at the old address. The federal law is 42 U.S.C. 1973. That is part of the 1993 federal law nicknamed the “motor voter” law, but formally known as the National Voter Registration Act.

Unfortunately, the Commonwealth Court decision will apparently not be reported. It can still be cited as a precedent, and the information in the decision of course can still be used. However, if the decision were reported, it would be easier for attorneys in other, future lawsuits to refer to it. “Reported” means that the decision has been sent in to the private company that prints copies of important decisions in books that are found in law libraries. Pennsylvania state court decisions that are reported are found in the Atlantic Reporter.

On October 19, the Tennessee Green Party and the Tennessee Constitution Party filed a supplemental brief in the Sixth Circuit, concerning the order of candidates on the ballot. In their 2011 ballot access lawsuit called Green Party of Tennessee v Hargett, the parties had also won on the issue of the order in which candidates and parties are listed on the ballot. The U.S. District Court had struck down the law giving the two largest parties the best spot on the ballot.

The Sixth Circuit had then stayed the part of the U.S. District Court decision on the order of candidates on the ballot, but did not decide the issue. The state had argued that the evidence in the U.S. District Court, showing that ballot order affects voting behavior, doesn’t relate to party-column ballots, and the state had asserted, or implied, that all Tennessee counties use a party-column ballot.

The October 19 filing to the Sixth Circuit proves that some counties in Tennessee use an office-group ballot. The brief has a picture of one of these ballots for the 2012 election. Of course, this filing has no effect on the 2012 ballots, but will be persuasive when the issue is decided in the Sixth Circuit. If the Sixth Circuit eventually agrees with the U.S. District Court, Tennessee will in future elections give each party/candidate an equal chance to be listed first on the ballot.

On October 18, Gary Johnson and his campaign sued the Commission on Presidential Debates, charging that he is being illegally kept out of the CPD debates because he meets the requirements. The Commission on Presidential Debates has kept Johnson out of the debates because the Commission does not believe that Gary Johnson meets the 15% poll rule. However, the rule does not say that the poll must include any particular set of candidates.

The Johnson campaign, during late September and early October, commissioned five national polls in which respondents were asked if they prefer President Obama or Gary Johnson. In all five polls, Gary Johnson easily exceeded 15%. The specific results were: (1) Gravis Marketing, Obama 45%, Johnson 34%, other responses 21%; (2) NSON, Obama 54%, Johnson 23%, other responses 23%; (3) Research Now, Obama 52%, Johnson 26%, other responses 22%; (4) Toluna, Obama 54%, Johnson 46%; (5) uSamp, Obama 63%, Johnson 37%.

The CPD rules just say that the candidate must be at or above 15%, when five different national polls are averaged together. Under the literal language of the CPD rules, Johnson qualifies. The case is Johnson v Commission on Presidential Debates, U.S. District Court, 1:12-cv-1711. Here is the Complaint. Thanks to UncoveredPolitics for the link.