Ever since 1943, the Prohibition Party has followed a policy of nominating its presidential nominee in the odd year before the presidential election. The party is meeting for that purpose June 20-22 in Cullman, Alabama. The presidential nominee will be chosen on June 22. Two individuals are interested in obtaining the nomination, Jim Hedges of Pennsylvania, and Jack Fellure of West Virginia.

The Prohibition Party started its habit of nominating in the year before the election after its 1940 experience in Pennsylvania. In 1937 the state had moved its petition deadline to April of presidential election years. The party submitted a timely petition listing candidates for presidential elector, but the petition didn’t name the party’s presidential nominee, Roger W. Babson, because he hadn’t yet been nominated and the party didn’t know who was going to be its nominee when it submitted the petition. But the state rejected the petition because it hadn’t named the presidential nominee. To avoid this problem in the future, the party began nominating its presidential candidate far earlier in the process.

The June 20 Washington Post has this op-ed by Theresa Amato, making the point that inclusive debates can dramatically alter the fortunes of candidates who do substantially better than expected. Amato was campaign manager for Ralph Nader in both 2000 and 2004. Nader, of course, was never permitted to participate in general election presidential debates with his major party opponents. In the United States, inclusive presidential debates in the primary season, for major party contenders, is routine. But somehow, when general election debates are being held, suddenly the media and powerful political figures declare that having more than two candidates in the debate is distracting and not in the public interest. Thanks to Oliver Hall for the link.

The U.S. Supreme Court released four opinions on June 20, but it did not release its opinion in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v Bennett, 10-238. The Court only has two more scheduled dates for the release of opinions before it goes on its summer break. Those dates are Thursday, June 23, and Monday, June 27. The Arizona case was argued in March. Traditionally, the Court releases opinions in all argued cases before going on summer recess.

Arizona Free Enterprise is about Arizona’s extra public funding for campaigns, for publicly-funded candidates who have well-funded opponents who aren’t using public funding. The case does not directly involve minor parties or independent candidates, but the decision will have important implications for the pending lawsuit against Connecticut’s public funding law, which discriminates harshly against independent candidates and the nominees of new parties.