Arizona law sets the 2012 presidential primary on February 28, but the law also gives the Governor the authority to change that date. On July 21, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer suggested she is inclined to move the primary into January. See this story. Thanks to Frontloading HQ for the link.

Although press stories focus on the impact this would have on the Republican presidential contest, the proposed early Arizona primary could also impact the Libertarian Party and the Green Party. Both are entitled to a presidential primary in Arizona if they desire one. In 1996, the Arizona Libertarian Party and the Arizona Democratic Party won a court order, saying that if a party doesn’t want the state to hold a presidential primary for itself, then the state should respect the party’s wishes and not hold one. Republicans also refused a presidential primary in Arizona in 2004. Arizona held no presidential primaries before 1996.

In 2008 the Libertarian Party declined to participate in the state’s presidential primary, but held its own party-financed mail presidential primary. The Arizona Green Party has never before been entitled to participate in a government presidential primary. Although the Green Party successfully petitioned to be a qualified party in 2000 and 2008, it didn’t qualify in time for its own presidential primary. For 2012, however, the Greens are already qualified so they could have their first presidential primary if they wish to.

On July 21, three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, rejected the motion of the Board of Elections to summarily rule against the Libertarian Party, in Libertarian Party v D.C. Board of Elections, 11-7029. The Court will now set a briefing schedule. The issue is whether the U.S. Constitution protects the right of voters to have their write-ins counted, in presidential elections. The D.C. election law provides that write-in presidential candidates may file a declaration of write-in candidacy, but then the Board won’t count the votes for such presidential candidates. In 2008, Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party presidential candidate, was the only write-in candidate for President who filed to have his write-ins counted. The lower court had said the Board’s interest in saving money is more important than the right to have votes counted.

The one-page order says, “The merits of the parties’ positions are not so clear as to warrant summary action. Because the court has determined that summary disposition is not in order, the Clerk is instructed to calendar this case for presentation to a merits panel.”

The July 21 Sacramento Bee has this op-ed by Kris Novoselic and Rob Richie, advocating that states and other units of government use either proportional representation, or cumulative voting, or instant runoff voting, instead of the “winner-take-all” system so prevalent in the U.S.