On October 2, the 9th circuit issued an order in Washington State Republican Party v State, 05-35774. The U.S. District Court is directed to “allow the parties to further develop the record with respect to the claim that Initiative 872 unconstitutionally constrains access to the ballot and appropriates the political parties’ trademarks, to the extent these claims have not been waived or disposed of by the Supreme Court.” Thanks to Richard Shepard for this news.

On October 1, at 4 p.m., an employee of the California Secretary of State’s office verbally stated that the Democratic and Republican Parties had not yet submitted their presidential elector candidates, although at that time the deadline was an hour away. A particular activist in a minor party, who was at the Secretary of State’s office at 4 p.m., remained in the office until closing time and believes that they were not filed by 5 p.m. That same activist again visited the Secretary of State’s office on October 2, but no one would discuss the matter. The activist asked for a list of the presidential elector candidates but the office refused to give the list to him.

There would be no practical consequences if the Democratic and Republican Parties were late with their California elector candidates. The ballots are already printed. California absentee ballots are available October 6. But, if it is true that the legal deadline was ignored, that is more reason to grant leniency when minor party and independent presidential candidates make similar mistakes.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert Echols has set a hearing date of October 10, in Kurita v The State Primary Board of the Tennessee Democratic Party. This is the case that challenges the decision of the Democratic Party not to recognize Rosalind Kurita as their nominee for State Senate, even though she won the August Democratic primary. The party decertified her because it said too many Republicans voted in the Democratic primary.