The Communist Party announced earlier this month that it will no longer produce a paper edition of its weekly newspaper, the People’s Weekly World. The paper will be an internet publication.

Very few nationally-organized political parties in the United States continue to publish a paper edition of a national newsletter or a national newspaper. The Libertarian Party still publishes the Libertarian Party News on paper (monthly), and the Socialist Workers Party still publishes The Militant on paper (weekly). UPDATE: also the Party for Socialism and Liberation publishes a bi-weekly newspaper called Liberation, and has done so for the last two years.

The Green Party no longer publishes the Green Pages on paper, except on rare occasions. The Constitution Party has never had a paper periodical, although William Shearer’s former print publications unofficially served as national party publications. The Reform Party never had a periodical either, nor did the Natural Law Party.

The Arkansas Green Party held a statewide meeting July 18-19 and decided to sue the state over its definition of “political party”. The party was removed from the ballot in November 2008 because it polled under 3% for president. However, it polled over 20% for U.S. Senate, and its three U.S. House candidates averaged over 19%.

The Green Party of Arkansas is the first party, in any state, since the beginning of ballot access laws in 1889, to have ever elected a state legislator while the state was simultaneously removing it from the ballot.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said repeatedly that the purpose of ballot access laws is to keep candidates and parties off the ballot if those candidate or parties lack a modicum of support. “Modicum” is defined to be “a small amount.” It is absurd for Arkansas, or any state, to say that a party that just elected a state legislator, and polled over 20% of the statewide vote, lacks a modicum of support.

There have been very few federal precedents over any state’s definition of “political party.”

Five different Tennessee election laws are the subject of constitutional cases now pending in federal court. Probably no other state has so much constitutional election law litigation now pending.

The minor party ballot access case, Libertarian Party of Tennessee v Thompson, 3:08-cv-63, is in U.S. District Court. The attorney for the plaintiffs, the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution Parties, is about to file a brief asking for summary judgment.

A case involving disenfranchisement of ex-felons, if they owe child support or restitution, is pending in the 6th circuit. All briefs have been filed but no hearing has been set. The lower court had upheld the restriction. Plaintiffs argue that the policy violates the 24th amendment, banning poll taxes or other payments as a condition of registering to vote. This is an ACLU case, Terrence Johnson v Bredesen, 08-6377.

Kurita v State Primary Board of the Tennessee Democratic Party, 08-6245, is pending in the 6th circuit. All briefs have been filed but no hearing date has been set. The case concerns whether a political party can unseat the winner of its primary for state legislature and choose the runner-up. The plaintiff, Rosalind Kurita, won the Democratic primary in 2008 but the party certified the loser. The lower court had upheld the party’s ability to do that.

A case on whether county election administrators may be fired because they are Democrats is pending in U.S. District Court. Peterson v Dean, middle district, 3:09-cv-0628. On July 17 the court issued a Temporary Restraining Order, keeping the plaintiffs from being fired pending other actions in the case.

Finally, the 6th circuit has a case on whether voters have a right to elect Tennessee state court judges. The State Constitution, Art. 7, sec. 5, says vacant judicial posts shall be filled “by election”, but the state doesn’t hold candidate-versus-candidate elections. It uses appointment followed by retention elections (“Yes” or “No” elections). Plaintiffs argue that the U.S. Constitution requires states to abide by their own constitutions when fundamental rights are at stake. The case, Jason Johnson v Bredesen, 08-6013, was argued in the 6th circuit on June 15.