The U.S. Supreme Court oral argument seems to show that the Colorado Supreme Court decision that keeps former President Donald Trump off the ballot will be reversed, perhaps unanimously. Some of the justices, both Democratic and Republican appointees, seem very bothered by the idea that states can make decisions about ballot access in connection with the insurrection clause, because there would be a patchwork effect.

Justice Elena Kagan mentioned that the U.S. Supreme Court decision Anderson v Celebrezze shows that states don’t have unlimited discretion to bar candidates from the ballot, even though Article Two says they can appoint presidential electors any way they wish. It is a good signal for ballot access that the U.S. Supreme Court is thinking about Anderson v Celebrezze, which struck down early petition deadlines for independent presidential candidates.

The attorney for the objectors, Jason C. Murray, reminded the Court three times that there were no ballot access restrictions in place in 1868. It is very good that the Court heard this. It is possible that some members of the Court may not have known that. The attorney explained that there were no government-printed ballots until the 1890’s, which is true and which needs to be better known.

Here’s a story today published by The Washington Post. It mentions the Libertarian Party, which has achieved presidential ballot access in all 50 states and DC in five of the last eight presidential elections, but none of the LP’s possible presidential candidates this year. The LP’s presidential ticket will be selected at its National Convention on Memorial Day weekend at the Washington Hilton Hotel in the District of Columbia.