On January 21, Free and Equal held a press conference in the Capital Press Room in the Illinois legislature in Springfield. Here is the news coverage from the Springfield daily newspaper. Free and Equal will have several arms. One will be a lobbying group. Already, Free & Equal has identified an Illinois State Senator who is likely to introduce a bill soon to improve ballot access in that state.

Another arm of Free and Equal will be to provide paid petitioning teams for independent and minor party candidates.

Christina Tobin conceived of Free and Equal. She is well-positioned for that work. She is the daughter of James Tobin, the Libertarian Party nominee for Governor of Illinois in 1998. Tobin was kept off the ballot by a challenge to the Libertarian statewide petition, even though the petition-checking process showed that he had enough valid signatures and was otherwise qualified. One could say that the experience radicalized Tobin. Tobin gained valuable experience in managing petition drives, by doing that work nationwide for Ralph Nader in 2008.

On January 21, the Arkansas House Stage Agencies & Governmental Affairs Committee passed HB 1021 unanimously. The bill moves the presidential primary from February to May.

Arkansas law provides that newly qualifying parties may have a presidential primary, although not a primary for other office. Moving the presidential primary to May increases the likelihood that most newly-qualifying parties will qualify in time to have their own presidential primary. However, there aren’t usually many newly-qualifying parties in Arkansas. The only ones that have qualified for full party status in the last 35 years have been the Reform Party and the Green Party.

On January 15, 2009, the Pennsylvania Green Party’s US Senate candidate from 2006, Carl Romanelli, again asked the Commonwealth Court for relief from having to pay over $80,000 to the people who challenged his petition. Here is his brief. It mentions the constitutional issue, and argues that U.S. Supreme Court precedent suggests that voters and candidates cannot be charged for the costs of administering elections, particularly if they can’t afford it.

On January 21, the challengers filed a brief in response, but the response brief completely ignores the constitutional argument.