Brian Dickerson, Deputy Editorial Page Editor of the Detroit Free Press, has this column in the April 18 issue. His column expresses the thought that Michigan would be well-served with an independent middle-of-the-road gubernatorial candidate this year. The column also explains that one factor that discourages independent candidates is Michigan’s straight-ticket device. Also the column advocates Instant Runoff Voting.

The column correctly says that straight-ticket devices are especially harmful to independent candidates, because they don’t get a straight-ticket device. The column could have mentioned, but did not, that the Michigan legislature repealed the straight-ticket device in 2002, but then the Democratic Party sponsored a referendum on the law that eliminated the straight-ticket device. The voters, in November 2002, voted to keep the device.

Joe Schwarz, a former liberal Republican U.S. House member from Michigan, is still thinking about being an independent candidate for Governor this year.

On April 14, the Massachusetts Libertarian Party filed this brief in the First Circuit, in Barr v Galvin, 09-2426. The issue is whether the Massachusetts Libertarian Party should have been permitted to use a stand-in presidential candidate on its 2008 ballot access petition. The U.S. District Court had ruled in 2008 that Massachusetts must let the party use a stand-in.

The state is unhappy with that decision, and it is trying to get it reversed. Of course, since the 2008 election is over, the only impact from the upcoming First Circuit decision will be on future elections.

Barr v Galvin is the first case on using stand-ins on petitions to reach any U.S. Court of Appeals. In the past, when various states have lost on this issue, they have not cared about the issue enough to appeal. States that have barred stand-ins, and been told by courts that they must permit them, besides Massachusetts, are Florida (twice) and Virginia.

According to this article in The Hill, President Obama endorsed HR 157 on April 16. This is the bill to expand the size of the U.S. House, with a new seat for Utah and a seat for the District of Columbia. But the article also says that Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah will not only oppose it, but that he will organize a filibuster against it. Hatch supports the concept but he is unhappy that the bill provdes that Utah’s new seat should temporarily be elected statewide, instead of requiring that Utah immediately draw up four districts. Thanks to Rick Hasen’s ElectionLawBlog for this news.