The Green Party of Arkansas is currently in U.S. District Court, over whether the state’s definition of “political party” is too restrictive. On April 15, the judge ruled on a procedural dispute in that lawsuit.

The state had asked an officer of the Green Party for the names of individuals who are thinking of running for public office this year as Greens. The party objected. Now. the judge ruled that the state has no good reason to ask that question, and ruled that the party need not reveal the names of people who are thinking of running this year. Here is the 7-page opinion and order.

On April 15, a U.S. District Court blocked Utah elections officials from releasing the names and addresses of people who signed an initiative petition, for ten days, which will give more time for both sides to prepare further arguments. See this story

On April 15, a U.S. District Court heard arguments in Utahns for Ethical Government v Barton. See this story.

The case was filed by the group that is submitting a petition on April 15 to get an initiative on the ballot. The group is afraid that if the names and addresses are made public, opponents of the initiative will contact the signers and ask them to retract their signatures. A new Utah law lets signers retract their names, up to several weeks after the petition is due. Attorneys for the state government apparently argue that the plaintiffs don’t have standing, so the judge apparently will hold a second hearing late in the day on standing. In the parallel case from Washington state, the lead plaintiff was “John Doe”, a signer who doesn’t want his name and address made public. Perhaps the Utah group didn’t realize that to guarantee there is no standing problem, that it should have an actual signer as a co-plaintiff.