On March 17, the Oklahoma House passed HB 1058 by a vote of 69-17. Now it goes to the Senate. It reduces the number of signatures to get a party on the ballot from 5% of the last vote cast, to exactly 22,500 signatures. Thanks to Angelia O’Dell for this news. The existing law required 73,134 signatures in 2010, and 51,739 in 2012.

If HB 1058 is signed into law, the only states in 2012 which will require more than 50,000 signatures to get a presidential candidate on the November ballot (by the easier method, independent or new party) will be California, Georgia, and North Carolina. Bills are pending in North Carolina to lower the North Carolina signature requirements, but they won’t be brought up in committee until April. No bills are pending in Georgia or California.

UPDATE: all of the “No” votes were Republicans, except that one Democrat, Mike Shelton, also voted “no.” One of the Republicans who voted “no” was Sue Tibbs, who had introduced HB 2654 in 2002 to lower the minor party petition down to 5,000 signatures, and also to ease the vote test for a party to remain on from 10% to 1%.

On March 10, the Democratic Party of Harford County sued the county government, to obtain some seats on the Commission that will redistrict the county’s districts. See this story. The county charter says only parties that polled at least 15% of the vote in the last general election for County Council are entitled to seats on the Commission. The Democrats didn’t run any candidates in four county council districts, and ended up with only 11% of the total votes cast for all seats in the November 2010 election. However, if the vote for president of the county council is excluded, then the Democrats polled 21%.

On March 17, the Massachusetts Libertarian Party asked the U.S. Supreme Court for an extension of time in which to file a cert petition in Barr v Galvin. Such extensions of time are fairly easy to obtain. Barr v Galvin is the Massachusetts case over whether unqualified parties have a right to use stand-in presidential candidates on their ballot access petitions, given that qualified parties have the right to change their presidential and vice-presidential nominees. For example, in July 1972, the Democratic Party certified Thomas Eagleton as its vice-presidential nominee to election officials in all states, but the following month, the party substituted R. Sargent Shriver. UPDATE: here is the party’s filing.

Also on March 17, The Massachusetts Libertarian Party asked the U.S. District Court who had originally handled the case to certify the question (to a state court) of whether Massachusetts election law already permits presidential stand-ins. Originally, the U.S. District Court had ruled in favor of the party, and had ruled that the apparent ban on presidential stand-ins for unqualified parties violates the Constitution. Later, the First Circuit had reversed the U.S. District Court on the constitutional issue, but had suggested that perhaps the state courts should interpret whether the law really bans stand-ins or not. The law is not clear.