On July 18, a U.S. District Court Judge in South Carolina issued an 8-page Opinion in Greenville County Republican Party v State, 6:10-cv-1407, the case in which the South Carolina Republican Party argues that the Constitution protects its ability to limit its primaries to party members. The opinion gives both sides the chance to conduct discovery and present evidence, on the following questions: (1) is the Republican Party of either Greenville County, or the state party itself, really likely to hold closed primaries if either wins the case; (2) whether it is true or not that the state law barring a party from nominating by primary unless three-fourths of all delegates at a party convention (whether they are present at the moment to vote on the question) vote in favor of using a convention is too restrictive; (3) whether it is true or not that non-Republicans have been voting in Republican primaries; (4) what the results would be if the Republican Party were permitted to limit its primaries to party members.

Back on March 30, the same judge had issued an opinion in which the Republican Party seemed to have lost the case, although that opinion had been somewhat internally contradictory.

On July 25, the New Hampshire Libertarian Party filed this petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. This is the case in which, in 2008, the Secretary of State of New Hampshire refused to give the Libertarian Party the name protection that virtually every other state routinely gives to all political parties. Even though the Libertarian Party national convention clearly nominated Bob Barr for President in May 2008, the Secretary of State printed two “Libertarian” presidential candidates on the November 2008 ballot. The U.S. District Court Magistrate, and the First Circuit, then ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not give parties a freedom of association right to prevent non-nominees of the party from using the party label on the general election ballot. The First Circuit did not even mention the only on-point precedents that ruled to the contrary, nor did the First Circuit mention the U.S. Supreme Court decision California Democratic Party v Jones, which has a great deal of language in support of party associational rights. COFOE (the Coalition for Free & Open Elections) helped pay the costs of the petition. COFOE thanks everyone who has contributed to the organization, which is a loose coalition of most of the nation’s nationally-organized minor parties, and other organizations that support their ability to compete in elections.

As previously reported, on March 17, 2011, the Libertarian National Committee sued the Federal Election Commission, to gain the ability to receive a bequest of $217,734 that had been left to the party by Raymond Burrington, who had died on April 26, 2007. Federal campaign laws prevent anyone from giving that much money to a national committee of a political party in any one calendar year.

On May 3, the FEC had filed a motion, asking the Libertarian Party’s attorneys to clarify the complaint. The FEC said the Libertarian Party complaint did not explain whether the party is only trying to defeat the limit on how much money a deceased person can give to a national committee for any purpose, or whether the party is also trying to defeat the limit on how much money a deceased person may give for the purpose of helping candidates running for President and/or Congress. On May 17, the Libertarian Party filed an amended complaint, clarifying that it is attacking all limits on how much money a deceased person may give, and that the party believes a deceased person’s contribution ought to be available for helping federal candidates, as well as for party projects that are not tied directly to any candidate’s campaign. Now that this has been clarified, the 3-judge court already set for this case has been dissolved, and the case is on its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The federal campaign laws specify rules for which court handles which type of case, and because this lawsuit now attacks part of the law passed in 1974, the law says such a challenge goes directly to the D.C. Circuit.