Ballot Access News erred when it reported that the new Florida ballot access law for minor party presidential candidates requires a petition signed by 4% of the last presidential vote, unless the minor party is recognized by the Federal Election Commission. The bill was amended on the day before it passed the legislature, so that parties not recognized by the FEC as national committees need a petition of 1% of the number of registered voters. The 4% provision was deleted by that last-minute amendment. BAN regrets the error. Thanks to Dan Winslow for this news.

Although the law is not as bad as had been reported, it still seems obviously unconstitutional. The Florida Constitution says, “The requirements for … a candidate of a minor party for placement of the candidate’s name on the ballot shall be no greater than the requirements for a candidate of the party having the largest number of registered voters.” The new law requires new parties (new parties can never be recognized by the FEC) in 2012 to submit 112,174 valid signatures, whereas the Democratic Party (the Florida party with the most registered voters) need not do anything to place its presidential nominee on the ballot except certify a list of presidential elector candidates, and the names of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates they are pledged to, to the Secretary of State.

Furthermore, the petition is due July 15, months before the two major parties will be formally choosing their presidential tickets. The 2012 Democratic national convention is in September 2012.

The Arkansas Green Party has decided to collect signatures to get back on the ballot for 2012. The law requires the petition to be completed in 3 months. The party will seek its 10,000 valid signatures between September 3 and December 1, 2011. Meanwhile, the party is still waiting for the 8th circuit to issue an opinion in its lawsuit over the vote test for remaining on the ballot. It is conceivable that the petition won’t be needed.

On July 14, U.S. District Court Otis Wright set an oral argument in Chamness v Bowen, cv11-01479. This is the case that challenges the part of California’s top-two system that lets some candidates use their party label on the ballot but does not let certain other candidates use their party label on the ballot. Here is the order, saying that although the judge is still inclined to uphold the ballot label law, he wants to be fair and to listen to oral argument.

On July 18, the scope of the case was potentially expanded, when a write-in candidate for U.S. House in the July 12 special election (36th district in western Los Angeles County) asked to intervene in the case. The candidate voted for himself, because the ballot contained write-in space, but his vote was not counted because the law implementing the top-two system says write-ins can never be counted in the general election for Congress and partisan state office. It will be interesting to see if the judge permits the intervention. Earlier he permitted former Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado to intervene in this lawsuit.

Here is commentary about the case from Damon Eris, writing at California Independent Voter Network.