On March 19, U.S. District Court Judge Timothy DeGiusti declined to issue an injunction, putting the Libertarian Party on the Oklahoma ballot. He noted that the party submitted 57,137 signatures by the March 1 deadline, and that the requirement is 51,739 signatures, and the signatures have not yet been checked. Therefore, it is possible the party has enough valid signatures. Oklahoma election officials are checking the signatures now, and probably won’t be finished until March 28. Here is the 35-page order.

The order, on page 20, seems to suggest that Judge DeGiusti believes that it is possible for independent presidential candidates to get on the November ballot without a petition, just by paying a fee. The order says, “Independents have placed presidential candidates on the ballot via the alternative means of paying a filing fee without gaining party recognition.” Actually, independent presidential candidates, and the presidential nominees of unqualified parties, need 43,890 signatures by July 15.

The order does not mention any of the 17 precedents which say that petition deadlines for a new party to get on the ballot are unconstitutional, if they are earlier than May. The order mentions several precedents that uphold petitions of 5%, but does not acknowledge that none of the federal precedents mentioned in the order relate to presidential elections. The federal precedents cited in the order are Jenness v Fortson (which concerned a gubernatorial and a U.S. House election), and Rainbow Coalition v Oklahoma Election Board (which concerned ballot access in another midterm year, 1986). The order does not mention Bergland v Harris, a 1985 Eleventh Circuit opinion that said that Jenness v Fortson doesn’t necessarily apply to presidential elections. Another important precedent the order does not mention in Blomquist v Thomsen, a 10th circuit opinion which said that when the normal petitioning period is shortened, the number of signatures should be proportionately reduced. Oklahoma is in the 10th circuit. The order does not mention that in Anderson v Celebrezze, the U.S. Supreme Court said presidential ballot access is entitled to greater protection than ballot access for other office.

Filing has closed for the French presidential election being held next month. Nine parties succeeded in placing a presidential nominee on the ballot. See this story. Also, an independent candidate qualified.

The nine parties are the Union for a Popular Movement, the Socialist Party (which are the two biggest parties), and these on the left: Green, Left Front, New Anti-Capitalist, and Workers’ Struggle; and on the right, the National Front and Rise Up Republic; and the centrist Democratic Movement. If no one gets 50%, a run-off will be held two weeks later. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.

Arizona HB 2826 passed the House on March 1, and passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 12. It would eliminate all elections for public office in Arizona, except in August and November of even-numbered years.

The bill, if signed into law, would likely be held unconstitutional, as applied to vacancies in the U.S. House that occur in the first nine months of odd-numbered years. The law might also be held to violate the Arizona Constitution, which has protections for referenda and recall. The bill applies to all local jurisdictions, even those with a Charter. See this article. If the bill is signed into law, it would not cancel odd-year elections in 2013, but would cancel them in 2015 and future odd years. Thanks to Joshua Spivak for the news.