On May 23, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam signed HB 794. The bill moves the petition deadline to place a party on the ballot, but the improvement is slight. The deadline moves from March to early April. Also, the bill deletes the requirement that the petition must say that the signers are members. The bill does not lower the number of signatures for a new party, which will be 40,042 in 2012.

The old law was held unconstitutional last year, mostly because the deadline was so early. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, or strongly implied, on four occasions that petitions that early to place a new party on the ballot are unconstitutional. Courts in fifteen states have struck down petition deadlines (for new parties) earlier than May. There are no contrary reported decisions, except that an April petition deadline was upheld in North Dakota in 1988, but at the time North Dakota permitted partisan labels with the independent procedure and the independent candidate deadline was in September.

It is likely that the same three parties that sued Tennessee will file a new lawsuit. They are the Constitution, Green, and Libertarian Parties.

Heidi Fuller recently filed this 25-page reply brief, in Fuller v Bowen, pending in the California Court of Appeals. The case concerns the California Constitution’s requirement that candidates for the legislature must have lived in their district at least one full year before the election. California officials have not enforced this requirement ever since 1976, even though no court has ever said the California Constitutional requirement violates the U.S. Constitution (except for the lower court in this lawsuit).

The link does work, but it may take 15 or 20 seconds to load.

Fuller had filed this lawsuit in 2010. The lower court had ruled that she does have standing, and that the courts have jurisdiction. But the decision also says that the California Constitution’s residency requirement violates the U.S. Constitution. The California legislature has filed an amicus curiae brief in the Appeals Court. That first half of the amicus can be read here; here is the second half.

The Constitution Party no longer enjoys qualified status in California, so the party is taking steps to make it possible for its 2012 presidential nominee to be on the California general election ballot. Earlier this month, the party sought a ruling from the California Secretary of State on whether out-of-state circulators are permitted, at least for an independent presidential candidate petition.

Although California law bars out-of-state circulators, and even out-of-district circulators, the California Secretary of State already ruled that she would not enforce the laws that restrict circulators for district office from working outside their home district. Also, the 9th circuit ruled in 2008 in an Arizona case that states cannot bar out-of-state circulators, and California is in the 9th circuit.

Also, Gary Odom, national Field Director for the Constitution Party, and a former Californian himself, has called on all Constitution Party activists and members in California to change their voter registration from “American Independent” to “Constitution.” If the Constitution Party could persuade 103,004 Californians to list themselves as Constitution Party members on voter registration forms, it would become ballot-qualified.

The lawsuit in which the faction of the American Independent Party that is loyal to the Constitution Party argues that the Secretary of State has recognized the wrong state party officers is still alive, however.