The December 29 edition of Philadelphia Weekly has this story about the extent to which unions are beginning to start supporting Green Party nominees.

Tennessee Ticket, a blog about Tennessee politics, sums up political developments in that state during the last decade in this article. Toward the end it briefly discusses the 2010 decision that struck down that state’s ballot access laws for new and minor parties.

On December 30, 2010, Virginia filed this response brief in Libertarian Party of Virginia v Virginia State Board of Elections, the case pending in the 4th circuit over the requirement that only residents of a U.S. House district may circulate petitions for a candidate running in that district.  Although the brief includes 23 pages of argument, it does not say what the state interest is in having this restriction.  It merely asserts that the restriction is a ballot access restriction.  But any discussion of the purpose of the restriction is missing.

The evidence in this case already shows that Virginia has never had more than 6 candidates on the general election ballot for U.S. House (in a regularly-scheduled election), even in the period 1896-1936 when independent and minor party candidates for U.S. House needed no signatures and no fee in order to get on the ballot.  So, one reads the brief and wonders why does the state need to enforce a law that says a circulator can’t work if he or she doesn’t live in that district?