On May 5, the 3rd circuit issued this 2-page order, requiring New Jersey not to print any Democratic primary ballots that omit the name of Carl Lewis for State Senate. The primary is June 7. The order does not guarantee that Lewis will be able to run, but now time is on his side instead of against him. The case in the 3rd circuit is Lewis v Guadagno, 11-2109.

The U.S. District Court will now expedite its ruling on whether the New Jersey Constitution violates the U.S. Constitution when it requires candidates for State Senate to have lived in the state for at least four years. Also, the New Jersey Supreme Court may rule that he has been a resident of New Jersey for the last four years. Lewis’ biggest difficulty for winning on statutory construction is that he voted in California in 2009. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.

On May 5, the Florida Senate passed HB 1355, the 157-page omnibus election law bill. It returns to the House because the version passed by the House is not exactly the same. The vote in the Senate was 25-13. All twelve Democrats voted “No”, and one Republican Senator also voted “No.” UPDATE: a few hours later, the House passed the bill by 80-37.

The bill makes it virtually impossible for a new political party, or an old political party that does not have “national committee” status, to place a presidential nominee on the ballot. It also tells all political parties that they may not nominate someone (for any office) who was a registered member of another party during the year before filing.

Assuming the bill is signed into law, the ballot access provisions will be challenged in court.

On May 4, the 8th circuit issued a 7-page opinion in Constitution Party of South Dakota v Nelson, 10-2910. This is a case on the constitutionality of South Dakota’s ban on out-of-state circulators, which has only existed since 2007. The 8th circuit concluded that none of the plaintiffs have standing, and dismissed the case without prejudice.

The out-of-state plaintiff in this lawsuit who wanted to circulate petitions to help the Constitution Party place candidates on its own primary ballot, Mark Pickens, never actually submitted a declaration that he wanted to do this work. Of course, that is not Mark Pickens’ fault; he is not an attorney and was not the person charged with knowing legal technicalities. The 8th circuit’s action in dismissing the case without prejudice is helpful to opponents of state bans on out-of-state circulators. The U.S. District Court Judge had believed the plaintiffs do have standing and had upheld the ban on out-of-state circulators, but his opinion is now overruled.

The next outcome involving bans on out-of-state circulators in states within the 8th circuit will come soon, in a pending Nebraska case, Citizens in Charge v Gale. That case is in U.S. District Court and was argued early this year.