As noted earlier, on March 30, a U.S. District Court Judge in South Carolina ruled that the Republican Party cannot close its primary to non-members, on the grounds that the party is always free to nominate by convention if it wishes. On April 27, the Republican Party filed a brief with the U.S. District Court, asking for clarification of the March 30 ruling. The party believes that the March 30 ruling is unclear on whether the challenged law is constitutional on its face, or constitutional as applied. Also, the party makes the case that the ruling is unclear on whether it is just a denial of injunctive relief, or a judgment that the case is now over in that court. A response from the state is due on May 16. Until these ambiguities are settled, it is not possible to know if the party will appeal. The case is The Greenville County Republican Party v State, 6:10-cv-1407.

On April 25, the Michigan Supreme Court issued this order, refusing to hear Socialist Party of Michigan v Secretary of State, 142163. The party had complained that Michigan requires almost twice as many signatures for a new party to get on the ballot, than it requires votes for an old party to remain on the ballot. The U.S. Supreme Court had said in Williams v Rhodes in 1968 that states cannot discriminate against new parties, relative to old ones. That decision struck down the Ohio ballot access law for new parties, partly because Ohio required more signatures for a new party to get on than for an old party to remain on.

Fred Karger, a Republican candidate for President, has been excluded from the South Carolina Republican Party’s upcoming presidential debate, even though he is willing to pay the $25,000 and even though he has filed as a candidate with the Federal Election Commission. Apparently the party has refused to permit him into the debate because of the rule that all candidates must be at 1% in a poll. However, Karger has submitted evidence of polls in which he does have at least 1%. See this story.