On January 11, the Michigan Attorney General filed a 30-page brief in the Michigan Supreme Court, arguing that the Supreme Court should not hear the Socialist Party’s ballot access case.

The Socialist Party’s strongest legal point is that the state requires substantially more signatures to get a new (or previously unqualified) party on the ballot, than it requires votes for an already-established party to remain on the ballot. In 2010, the Socialist Party needed 38,024 signatures to get on the ballot, but a party that was already on the ballot in 2010 only needed 16,083 votes for any statewide race to remain on the ballot. In Williams v Rhodes, the U.S. Supreme Court had said one reason the old Ohio ballot access laws for new parties were unconstitutional is that a new party needed petition signatures of 15% of the last gubernatorial vote to get on, but an old party needed a 10% vote (a lesser percentage) for Governor to remain on. The Michigan Attorney General’s brief does not mention Williams v Rhodes.

The Attorney General’s brief says, “A petition signature requirement is arguably more predictable and reliable, and thus, less burdensome, than a voting requirement.”

U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell has tentatively set a hearing date of 10:30 a.m. on March 4 for oral arguments in Libertarian Party v District of Columbia Board of Elections, 09-cv-1676. This is the case in which the party and Bob Barr argue that the U.S. Constitution requires that all valid votes must be counted, including write-in votes for presidential candidates who file a declaration of write-in candidacy. In 1975 the D.C. Appeals Court had ruled in Kamins v Board of Elections that the board must print write-in space on general election ballots for president, and must count those votes. The D.C. Board of Elections has interpreted that to mean that all it must do is count the total number of write-ins cast for President, without specifying how many write-in votes any particular candidate received, even if he or she had filed a declaration of write-in candidacy.

The case was filed in 2009 in the D.C. Court system, and the Board of Elections had it transferred to federal court. The first U.S. District Court Judge who had the case asked the U.S. Justice Department if it wished to express an opinion, but the Justice Department declined. Recently the case was transferred to Judge Howell, who is new to the federal bench.

Michael Chamness, who is on the ballot in this month’s special California State Senate election in Los Angeles County, has this op-ed in the Daily Breeze, explaining some of the problems for voters caused by the new top-two system.