On October 17, the Alaskan Independence Party filed for a rehearing en banc in the 9th circuit, in Alaskan Independence Party v State, no. 07-35186. The brief emphasizes that the original 9th circuit decision of October 6 made factual errors.

The original 9th circuit decision, footnote 3, says that the party had not filed an “as applied” challenge. But the petition for rehearing quotes from the party’s original complaint and its memo in the U.S. District Court to show that the party did file an “as applied” challenge. The party experienced problems with a rogue member in the elections of 2004, 2006, and this year. The whole point of the lawsuit was to keep that particular individual from running in the party’s primaries, now and in the future. An “as applied” challenge always has specific instances in which a state law is causing harm, whereas a “facial” challenge just says the law is always unconstitutional, regardless of specific problems.

Even more important, the 9th circuit had said that there is no conflict between any AIP bylaw and state law. But the petition for rehearing shows that the AIP has a bylaw which says, “Only those candidates endorsed by the Alaskan Independence Party may run as Alaskan Independence Party candidates in the primary or general election in the State of Alaska.”

California has cumbersome procedures for filing as a declared write-in candidate for president. A slate of 55 presidential elector candidates must file on behalf of any write-in presidential candidate. Each of the 55 candidates must fill out a notarized declaration of candidacy form. However, the presidential candidate need not do anything. The deadline was October 22. The only four slates filed are on behalf of Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party), James Harris (Socialist Workers Party), Frank Moore (independent), and Ron Paul. Therefore, write-ins for president for these four individuals will be tallied.

Candidates for president who are on the ballot in California are Obama, McCain, Barr, Nader, McKinney, and Alan Keyes.

On October 23, the New York city council voted 29-22 to change the term limits law for elected city officials. The voters had twice passed a law setting a two-term limit, but the new law permits three terms. If the law had not been changed, Mayor Bloomberg and two-thirds of the members of the City Council could not have run for re-election in 2009.