A U.S. District Court in the western district of North Carolina will hear Brody v North Carolina State Board of Elections, 3:10-cv-383, on April 28. This is the case in which the plaintiff-candidate, Mark Brody, argues that he should have been permitted to appear on the 2010 ballot as an independent candidate for state house, with no petition. He had successfully petitioned in 2008 as an independent candidate for the same seat, and had polled 30.6% of the vote.

The state told him he needed 2,367 valid signatures to appear on the 2010 ballot. He argues that this is illogical, because in 2008 in the same district and with the same label, he had received 9,182 votes. He maintains that the petition as applied to him is redundant because he has already showed that he has the needed voter support to run again. The state will argue that the case is moot and that it should be dismissed.

The other North Carolina ballot access case that concerns independent candidates, Greene v North Carolina Board of Elections, is pending in the 4th circuit. No hearing date has been set. The Greene case argues that the 4% (of the number of registered voters) petition requirement is unconstitutional because it has never been used by a candidate for U.S. House.

On April 8, the Montana legislature passed HB 91, the Secretary of State’s omnibus election law bill. It does not make any changes to the ballot access laws, except in a very narrow way. It makes it possible for presidential nominees of political parties to withdraw from the November ballot. This provision is in the bill because in 2008, the Constitution Party of Montana had nominated Ron Paul for President. At the time, the Secretary of State had no alternative but to print Paul’s name on the ballot, even though Paul didn’t want to be on the ballot.

The lawsuit against Montana’s March petition deadline for non-presidential independent candidates continues to move along. On April 8, both sides submitted additional paperwork to the U.S. District Court that is hearing the lawsuit against that deadline. The Secretary of State probably could have mooted this lawsuit, which is called Kelly v McCulloch, by asking the legislature to move the deadline back to June (the deadline had been in June until 2007, when it had been moved to March). But, the Secretary of State, Linda McCulloch, preferred not to suggest that change, so the lawsuit continues.

The 8th Circuit will hold oral arguments in Libertarian Party of North Dakota v Jaeger on Wednesday, May 11, in St. Paul, Minnesota. This is the case that challenges the North Dakota law that says no party can nominate any candidates in its primary, for state legislature, unless between 10% and 15% of all the voters who turn out to vote in the primaries choose that particular party’s primary ballot. The law specifically requires 1% of the population (including children and aliens), but turnout is so low in North Dakota primaries, especially in midterm years, that 1% of the population works out to between 10% and 15% of the voters who actually vote.

The law is so stringent, no minor party candidate for the legislature has appeared on the November ballot since 1976. Nevertheless, the U.S. District Court upheld the law last year, after refusing to hold oral arguments, and issuing a ruling the very day after the last brief had been filed.

North Dakota is the only state remaining that has a minimum vote requirement for candidates in partisan primaries, except that Hawaii imposes a primary vote test as well; but the Hawaii vote test only applies to independent candidates, not party candidates.