In 2008, five members of the Florida Green Party filed in the Green Party primary to run for the legislature. Green Party leaders had never been in touch with any of these individuals, and were unable to contact them. But because minor parties in Florida nominate by primary, it didn’t really matter what the party leadership thought about these candidates.

However, as the Florida press looked into the matter, and found that the candidates could not be contacted or would not speak to the press, suspicion grew that Republican Party activists had found these candidates, and perhaps paid their filing fees, and arranged for them to run for the purpose of injuring Democratic nominees. All five districts were perceived as competitive. However, in the end, in all five districts, the winner received over 50% of the total vote, so the presence of the Green Party nominees could not have tilted any outcome.

Eventually, the state chair of the Florida Green Party filed a lawsuit, to determine who paid the filing fees for the five candidates. On February 19, a state court in Pasco County heard oral arguments over whether the Green Party chair has a right to learn this information. A ruling is expected in a month or so. The case is King v Roman, 51-2008-8091.

On February 18, U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill, a Clinton appointee, heard oral argument in Idaho Republican Party v Ysursa. This is the case in which the party is trying to obtain a closed primary for itself. Idaho is a state with no registration by party. The hearing lasted just over an hour. It was difficult to tell which way the judge was leaning, but his opinion will probably be out in a month or two. There was little press coverage of the hearing.

The Los Angeles Times of February 20 has this op-ed by Steve Hill of the New America Foundation, questioning whether the “top-two” election system will help California.