During 2007, there were four federal lawsuits filed by various Reform Party activists against other Reform Party activists, over who the true officers of the party were. One of these four decisions has now been reported. When a U.S. District Court decision is “reported”, that means it has been published in the Federal Supplement. The Federal Supplement is published in many, many volumes by the West Lawbook Publishing Company. The Federal Supplement is where U.S. District Court decisions of importance are printed. The Federal Supplement is in every U.S. law library.

The four 2007 federal cases in which Reform Party activists sued each other had been filed in California, West Virginia, Florida, and Mississippi. The Mississippi decision, unlike the others, is now reported. It is Huffmaster v Foster, 565 F.Supp.2d 693 (S.D.Miss. 2008). Thomas Huffmaster, a Mississippi Reform Party activist, had sued members of the “Dallas” faction, alleging that he had been kept from being nominated as a Reform Party candidate for Congress in 2006 by Ted Weill, and that Weill had barred his nomination because Huffmaster was a friend of Shawn O’Hara. U.S. District Court Judge Tom Lee, a Reagan appointee, ruled that Huffmaster’s claims that barriers to his candidacy constituted a violation of the federal RICO (“Racketeer Influenced Organization) Statute do not have merit. Judge Lee also said that Huffmaster’s claims concerning the national Reform Party fail because Huffmaster lacks standing.

The decision describes some of the other, more significant federal intra-party Reform Party decisions, including the Tallahassee federal jury trial in the case called Reform Party of the U.S. v O’Hara. Since that Florida decision is not reported, the Mississippi decision (which is now reported) will provide historians of the Reform Party with an easy-to-find account of all the federal Reform Party internal disputes.

On October 25, the Minnesota Independence Party held a special convention to decide whether to endorse (not nominate) anyone for president. The McCain, Nader, Barr, Baldwin, and McKinney campaigns all made presentations. But the party decided to make no endorsement.
Here is an AP story about the Minnesota meeting. Thanks to IndependentPoliticalReport for the link.

Because Washington state is using the “top-two” system this year, no one may appear on the November ballot (for all state office, and for Congress) unless that person placed first or second in the August primary. This year’s August primary election returns reveal that the median 2nd-place finisher polled 32.41% of the vote.

Therefore, one may conclude that the ballot access barrier for the November ballot in Washington state this year is 32.41%, on the average. In other words, one may not appear on the November ballot without a prior showing of public support of almost one-third of the electorate. This fact lends strength for the pending lawsuit, Washington State Republican Party v Washington state, which will have a trial in U.S. District Court next year. The Libertarian Party, a co-plaintiff in that lawsuit, will probably take the lead, since the Libertarian Party is in a position to complain about the ballot access aspects of the “top-two” system. Prior decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court on ballot access make it clear that access to the general election ballot is protected for candidates who hold the constitutional qualifications, and who are not “sore losers”, and who have a modicum of support. “Modicum of support” has been interpreted to be 5%, a far lower level than 32%.