On the evening of April 25, the Tennessee House unanimously passed HB 794, which makes very small improvements to ballot access. No amendments were proposed or considered. It is clear that it is the Senate, not the House, that will take a serious look at the bill. The identical bill in the Senate, SB 935, has seven amendments pending, which will be debated on April 28.

Tennessee must revise its ballot access laws for new and minor parties because the existing law was invalidated last year. It is obvious to anyone who reads last year’s decision that the bills in their present form still do not pass constitutional muster. Last year’s decision said explicitly that a petition deadline four months before the primary is too early, but this bill sets a deadline four months before the primary. The Senate amendments do not improve the deadline but they do propose a substantially lower number of signatures. One of the amendments proposes 10,000; another amendment proposes 6,000. The existing unamended bills require over 40,000 signatures, the same number as in the existing law.

Also on the evening of April 25, the legislature passed HB 612, which moves the presidential primary from February to March. Thanks to Frontloading HQ for that news.

The Washington Post has this article on Nevada Commission on Ethics v Carrigan, 10-568, which will be argued in the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, April 27. The case has no direct connection to ballot access, but any case involving elections and the First Amendment always has the potential to affect ballot access. The case challenges a reprimand made by the Nevada Commission on Ethics to a city councilmember in Sparks. He voted in favor of approving a casino project, and the Commission ruled he should have abstained, because a friend of his, who was once his campaign manager, has an interest in the casino. The candidate points out that if he were not allowed to vote on the issue, his constituents, who strongly favored the project, would have been disenfranchised. Notwithstanding that the councilmember did cast a vote, the proposal still was defeated by the city council. Thanks to the Center for Competitive Politics for the link.