On December 5, the Minnesota Republican Party voted to ban 18 Republican office-holders or former office-holders from participating in any official party activities for the next two years.  This even includes a ban on their representing Minnesota Republicans at the 2012 national convention.  The 18 individuals had all endorsed the Independence Party gubernatorial nominee earlier this year.  On the list are two former Republican Governors (Arne Carlson and Al Quie) and one former Republican U.S. Senator (David Durenberger).  See this story.  Thanks to Bill Van Allen for the link.

December 6 is the deadline for the state of Georgia to file any opposition it wishes to file, before the U.S. Supreme Court, in Coffield v Kemp, the ballot access case.  Apparently Georgia chose not to file any brief, although neither did it tell the Court that it waives its right to file.  If the U.S. Supreme Court wants to hear from Georgia, it will ask Georgia to respond.

Also, December 6 was the deadline for any amicus curiae briefs in support of Coffield.  One was filed jointly by the Center for Competitive Democracy, the Coalition for Free & Open Elections, and the Free & Equal Elections Foundation.  Read it here.  COFOE paid for the printing and thanks everyone who has contributed to COFOE.

Here is the brief filed by Faye Coffield herself, a month ago.  Early next year the U.S. Supreme Court will say if it wants to hear this case.

By coincidence, December 6 is the deadline for government responses in four important ballot access cases.

Georgia’s response brief to the U.S. Supreme Court is due in Coffield v Kemp, the case that challenges ballot access laws for independent and minor party candidates for U.S. House.  It is possible that Georgia will choose not to respond.

Pennsylvania’s response to the 3rd circuit is due in Constitution Party v Cortes, the case that challenges the state’s unique system of threatening minor party and independent candidates with fees ranging up to $110,000 if they submit petitions that don’t have enough valid signatures.  The case also challenges the 15% registration membership test for a party to be exempt from petitioning for its nominees, and the failure of elections officials to count many write-ins, and the state’s failure to provide write-in tallies for candidates such as Cynthia McKinney (Green Party write-in presidential candidate in 2008 in Pennsylvania).

California’s response to the State Supreme Court is due in Field v Bowen, the case that challenges the implementation of the top-two law, on the matter of inequality in ballot labels.

New York state’s response to the U.S. District Court in Credico v State Board of Elections is actually overdue.  It was due Friday, December 3, but the state asked for two more months.  Plaintiffs are opposing this time extension.  This is the case attacking New York state law that discriminates against unqualified parties in fusion.  If two qualified parties jointly nominate the same candidate, the candidate’s name is listed twice on ballots; but if two unqualified parties do the same thing, the candidate’s name is only listed once.