As has been reported, Ohio and Alabama election laws require qualified parties to certify the names of their presidential and vice-presidential nominees by the first half of August. This creates a problem for the Democratic Party, which is holding its convention this year in the second half of August. Yet the Democratic dates are not unusual.

In the last seventeen prior presidential election years (1956 through 2020), in twelve of them, at least one of the major parties held its convention entirely in the second half of August, or in early September.

The Alabama and Ohio deadlines are almost certainly unconstitutional. Early deadlines for candidates to be added to the general election ballot have been held unconstitutional in 30 states during the period 1968 through the present. Anderson v Celebrezze, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down Ohio’s independent presidential petition deadline, says courts should adjudicate challenges to deadlines with a balancing test. Applying such a test to the Alabama and Ohio certification deadlines shows that the harm to the states of striking down those deadlines is almost nonexistent, yet the harm done to voting rights by those two deadlines is immense.

The Prohibition Party is petitioning in Pennsylvania to be on the ballot for president this year. If the drive succeeds, it will be the first time since 1954 (a midterm year) in which the party has had a nominee on the Pennsylvania statewide ballot.

The Prohibition Party is the recipient of a bequest set up in 1930, which helps its income. The trust was set up by George Pennock, one of the party’s wealthiest supporters during the early 20th century.

The New York Times has this article, saying Republicans want to boost minor party and independent presidential candidates this year. The authors repeated debunked claims about the 1992 and 2016 elections. They say Ross Perot helped Bill Clinton win in 1992, ignoring the exit polls in 1992 that said half the Perot voters said they would have voted for Clinton if Perot had not been running. They also ignore the fact that between July 17 and September 30, when Perot wasn’t running, Clinton was leading in the polls.

About the 2016 election, they say Jill Stein “gave a meaningful – and arguably election-deciding – boost to Mr. Trump by drawing progressive votes away from Hillary Clinton.” Yet the 2016 exit pollsters had extra questions for Stein voters, which reveal that 25% of the Stein voters said they would have voted for Clinton if Stein had not been on the ballot, but 14% of the Stein voters said they would have voted for Trump. Applying those percentages to the actual vote returns in the three states mention in the article (Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin) Stein did not change the electoral outcome in any state.

The authors are Maggie Haberman, Shane Goldmacher, Jonathan Swan, and Rebecca Davis O’Brien.