On April 26, the Michigan Judicial Selection Task Force recommended unanimously that Michigan change its method of electing State Supreme Court Justices. Michigan and Ohio are the only states in which parties nominate candidates for the State Supreme Court, and then voters elect them, but no party labels are permitted on the ballot.

Here is the report of the Task Force. The Michigan system has been in place since 1963. Not all members of the State Supreme Court must run in partisan elections. Justices who are running for re-election need not go through the partisan system. But justices who are running for their first term must be nominated in state party conventions. Voters are kept somewhat in the dark, however, because in the multi-candidate elections held after the party conventions, party labels are omitted from the ballot.

Qualified minor parties have the same right to nominate candidates for Supreme Court Justice, and when minor parties do nominate such candidates, they usually get a very large vote. For instance, in 2010, Libertarian nominee Bob Roddis received 262,654 votes, whereas no statewide Libertarian nominee running in a race with party labels received more than 79,407 votes. But the large vote for Roddis didn’t give the Libertarian Party of Michigan any increased attention or status, because virtually no one knew that Roddis had been the Libertarian nominee.

A majority of task force members recommends continued election of State Supreme Court Justices, without involvement by party conventions. A minority favors gubernatorial appointment, with input from neutral bodies so as to limit unfettered discretion by Governors. Thanks to Steve Shumaker for the link.

According to this story, chances that the Maine legislature will pass a bill to hold a presidential primary have increased recently. The Republican caucuses in Maine in 2012 are perceived to have been flawed.

On May 9, the South Carolina legislature failed to pass either bill that would have given relief to the 180 Democratic and Republican candidates for state and local office who wish to be on the June 12 primary ballot. See this story. The bills are SB 1512 and HB 3392.

Meanwhile, the original federal lawsuit to give some relief has evolved. The case, named “Amanda Somers v All Improperly Filed Candidates Involved in the June 12 2012 South Carolina Primary elections and the South Carolina Election Commission”, 3:12-cv-1191, had been filed May 4 by one State Senate candidate, Amanda Somers. But then she was put on the Republican primary ballot, so she amended her case to complain about the fact that her name was left off the overseas absentee ballots. Therefore, at that point, the case became useless to all the other candidates who are still off the ballot entirely.

One of those other candidates, John W. Pettigrew Jr., a Republican running for State Senate in the 25th district, had intervened in the case. But on May 11, he withdrew from the case, because it no longer dealt with the non-absentee ballots. It is possible he may soon file his own lawsuit. There probably would have been more lawsuits filed by additional candidates, but those candidates had generally expected the state legislature to provide some relief.

Some of the candidates may petition as independent candidates. They have until July 12 to do that. Unfortunately for them, South Carolina’s ballot access requirement for independent candidates for legislature and local office is tied for the most difficult in the nation. It is 5% of the number of registered voters. It is not so severe for statewide office or U.S. House.

South Carolina elects all its State Senators in presidential election years, for 4-year terms. There are no State Senate elections in midterm years.