On June 30, a state court in Georgia held a hearing in Norwood v Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections, the case over whether signatures are valid if the candidate pre-prints the name of the county on each line of the petition form, instead of requiring each signer to write in the county name along with the signer’s name and address.  See this story.  The judge indicated a decision is likely by July 2.

A side issue in the case is that the candidate, Mary Norwood, an independent running for Chair of the Fulton County Commission, was told in writing that her petition sheets, with the county pre-printed, were acceptable.  After she had 9,000 signatures on those forms, she was told that they are not valid.  She needs approximately 22,000 valid by July 13.

Candidate filing for Rhode Island closed on June 30.  Although independent candidates, and the nominees of unqualified parties, do not need to submit petitions until July 22, the law requires them to file a declaration of candidacy by June 30.  Five independents filed for the U.S. House, First District.  Two filed for the U.S. House, Second District.  Each will need 500 valid signatures.  Rhode Island does not have a U.S. Senate election this year.

Independents in Rhode Island, and in about half the states, are permitted to choose a partisan label to be printed on the ballot next to their names, as long as it does not mimic the name of a qualified party.  All of the independents in Rhode Island this year chose the label “independent”, except that one chose “Legalize Freedom”, and one chose “Robot Skeleton.”

Rhode Island has three qualified parties, Democratic, Republican, and Moderate.  No one filed in the Moderate Party primary for Congress.  However, the Moderate Party has candidates in its primary for Governor, Attorney General, two State Senate seats, three State House seats, and partisan city offices in Bristol and Cranston.

On June 30, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld the state’s law, requiring voters at the polls to show a government photo-ID that has not expired.  However, the Court left open the opportunity for an as-applied challenge by a voter who may be able to show that the requirement for that particular voter is burdensome.  The only plaintiff in the case decided on June 30 is the Indiana League of Women Voters.

The vote was 4-1.  Here is the decision.