On August 24, the Pennsylvania Attorney General responded to the lawsuit Constitution Party of Pennsylvania v Cortes, which was filed in federal court in Philadelphia on April 21, 2009. Here is the state’s brief.

The state completely ignores the part of the lawsuit that challenges the 15% registration membership for a party to be on the general election ballot automatically. The state also completely ignores the point raised by the Green Party, which is that although the state tallied the write-ins for Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party nominee for president in 2008), it did not do so for Cynthia McKinney (Green Party nominee for president in 2008). This, despite the fact that McKinney filed a list of presidential elector candidates and asked that her write-ins be tallied.

As to the point that certain counties failed to tally any write-ins at all, the state simply says the plaintiffs should sue those counties, not the state.

As to the most important point in the lawsuit, that the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from charging candidates and/or voters for the costs of election administration, the state does not mention any of the precedents on which the plaintiffs rely, such as cases striking down fees for checking signatures, or cases striking down mandatory filing fees for candidates, or the U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down poll taxes for voters.

On August 25, the Libertarian and Green Parties of New Mexico asked a U.S. District Court to place them on the 2010 ballot. Here is the brief. The lawsuit had been filed by the two parties on May 7, and is Woodruff v Herrera, cv-09-449.

The basis for the request is that the Libertarian Party asked for the petition blanks in January 2009, but was told that the Secretary of State’s practice is not to make the forms available until October of odd years, even though there is no law on the subject of when such petitions may be circulated. The brief cites the recent U.S. District Court decision from Rhode Island, in which Rhode Island’s law mandating that petitions to create a new party may not be circulated until January 1 of an election year was held unconstitutional.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits governments in certain states from changing any election laws or rules without getting U.S. Justice Department permission. In 1994, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act also covers political parties in those states.

On August 25, a 3-judge U.S. District Court in San Antonio ruled that, therefore, the Texas Democratic Party should have requested Justice Department permission in 2007, when it changes its rules on choosing delegates to national conventions. Here is the 25-page decision, Lulac of Texas v Texas Democratic Party, 5:08-cv-389. The opinion is by U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Edward C. Prado, a Bush Jr. appointee. It was signed by two U.S. District Court judges, Judge Fred Biery (a Clinton appointee) and Judge Xavier Rodriguez (a Bush Jr. appointee). Judge Biery wrote a short concurrence which seems to be expressing the hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will become involved in this case. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for the link.

The decision emphasizes that political parties do enjoy rights to autonomy, but the decision stresses that, so far, the Texas Democratic Party has not produced any evidence to show that its freedom of association will be injured if it must seek permission from the Justice Department. The party is free, under the Voting Rights Act, to ask for a 3-judge U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., to approve its changes, rather than seeking approval from the Justice Department.