By coincidence, December 6 is the deadline for government responses in four important ballot access cases.

Georgia’s response brief to the U.S. Supreme Court is due in Coffield v Kemp, the case that challenges ballot access laws for independent and minor party candidates for U.S. House.  It is possible that Georgia will choose not to respond.

Pennsylvania’s response to the 3rd circuit is due in Constitution Party v Cortes, the case that challenges the state’s unique system of threatening minor party and independent candidates with fees ranging up to $110,000 if they submit petitions that don’t have enough valid signatures.  The case also challenges the 15% registration membership test for a party to be exempt from petitioning for its nominees, and the failure of elections officials to count many write-ins, and the state’s failure to provide write-in tallies for candidates such as Cynthia McKinney (Green Party write-in presidential candidate in 2008 in Pennsylvania).

California’s response to the State Supreme Court is due in Field v Bowen, the case that challenges the implementation of the top-two law, on the matter of inequality in ballot labels.

New York state’s response to the U.S. District Court in Credico v State Board of Elections is actually overdue.  It was due Friday, December 3, but the state asked for two more months.  Plaintiffs are opposing this time extension.  This is the case attacking New York state law that discriminates against unqualified parties in fusion.  If two qualified parties jointly nominate the same candidate, the candidate’s name is listed twice on ballots; but if two unqualified parties do the same thing, the candidate’s name is only listed once.

On December 4, the Tennessee Republican Party executive committee decided to study whether to support closed primaries or not.  The study will take two months.  See this story.

As of December 1, all briefs have been filed in Constitution Party of Kansas v Biggs, U.S. District Court, 10-cv-4043.  The Constitution Party is not ballot-qualified in Kansas, but it has members in Kansas, and they wish to register as members of the Constitution Party.  The Kansas registration form does not permit this.  It has a checkbox for each of the 4 qualified parties, and a checkbox for people who wish to register as independents.  But it does not have a write-in line on the form for anyone to register into an unqualified party.

The brief for the Kansas Secretary of State implies that the Constitution Party is demanding that the names of all unqualified parties be printed on the form, but the Constitution Party’s reply brief makes it clear that the Constitution Party is only seeking a write-in line on the form, and that elections officials tally those registrations for unqualified parties that have been politically active in the state.  The Constitution Party has placed its presidential candidate on the Kansas ballot in each of the last two presidential elections, even though it wasn’t ballot-qualified.

The four ballot-qualified parties in Kansas currently are Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, and Reform.  The 10th circuit ruled back in 1984 that Colorado must permit members of unqualified parties to register as members of those parties, if the unqualified parties were politically active in Colorado.  Kansas is also in the 10th circuit.

Kansas and Nebraska are the only states in the nation which have registration by party, and which do not print a write-in line under “political party” on the voter registration form, and which will never print the names of any unqualified parties on the form.  Nebraska is in the 8th circuit, not the 10th circuit, and no one has sued Nebraska over this issue.