On June 16, the Arkansas Secretary of State determined that the Libertarian Party petition for party status has enough valid signatures. The party had submitted 16,000 to meet a requirement of 10,000. The validity rate was approximately 75%.

Before 1971, Arkansas did not require any petition for a party to become ballot-qualified. Since then, the other only parties that have ever successfully petitioned for party status in Arkansas have been the Reform Party in 1996, and the Green Party in 2006, 2008, and 2010.

Arkansas removes parties from the ballot unless they poll 3% for the office at the top of the ticket in each election (president in presidential years, and Governor in midterm years). This law has never permitted any party to keep its status, except that in 1996, the Reform Party met that test and also appeared automatically on the 1998 ballot. The Green Party is currently waiting for the 8th circuit to rule in its lawsuit against the 3% retention test.

Arkansas has a far easier ballot access procedure for parties that just want to be on the ballot for President. That petition only requires 1,000 signatures, and until today, that is the only petition that the Libertarian Party had ever used in Arkansas. Arkansas is the only state in which the Libertarian Party has never placed any nominees on the general election ballot, other than its presidential nominees. There are no statewide offices (other than President) up in Arkansas in 2012, but it is expected that the Libertarians will have candidates for U.S. House and state legislature.

On June 15, the Louisiana Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee passed HB 533. This is the Secretary of State’s omnibus election law bill. Among other things, it lets independent candidates choose the label “independent” on the ballot. Current law puts “no party” on the ballot for independent candidates, except that current law already lets presidential independent candidates choose any label they wish, including “independent.”

The bill also removes the names of presidential elector candidates from the ballot. If the bill passes, the only states that will continue to show the names of presidential elector candidates on the ballot will be Arizona, Oklahoma, Idaho, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

During the last eight days, three federal courts have either enjoined, or declared unconstitutional, various laws that control campaign spending:

1. On June 7, a U.S. District Court in Virginia re-affirmed its May 26 ruling in United States v Danielczyk, 1:11cr85 (e.d.). That ruling declares that the Constitution does not permit the government to ban all corporate donations to candidates for federal office. However, the newer ruling confines the holding to just that particular case, and also only to for-profit corporations, as opposed to ideological non-profit corporations. Here is the 18-page opinion of June 7. Of course, under this ruling, corporations must obey the limits on the amount of the donation.

2. On June 9, the 9th circuit agreed with a U.S. District Court, and maintained an injunction against certain San Diego city campaign finance restrictions. However, the 9th circuit also agreed with the U.S. District Court that certain other restrictions should not be enjoined. That case is Thalheimer v City of San Diego, 10-55434. The restrictions that continued to be enjoined are: (1) the ban on political parties making any contributions to candidates for city office; (2) the limit on how much may be contributed to a committee that makes independent expenditures for or against candidates for city office. The restrictions that remain in effect are: (1) no one may contribute to a candidate more than a year before the election; (2) groups (other than political parties) may not contribute directly to candidates for city office.

3. On June 15, a U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia enjoined a federal law that prohibits most political action committees from receiving unlimited donations to make independent expenditures in support or in opposition to candidates for federal office, if that same committee also makes direct contributions to any candidates for federal office. The court order does require such committees to keep separate bank accounts, one for contributions and one for independent expenditures. That case is Carey v Federal Election Commission, cv 11-259.

The extensive constitutional protection for independent expenditures for or against candidates, and the continuing restrictive rules on direct donations to candidates and political parties, has created a strange political culture in the United States. A large and growing proportion of speech about candidates comes not from the candidates themselves, and not from political parties, but from other individuals and groups, all of whom are required not to coordinate their speech with the candidate.