According to this article in the Yuma Sun, Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer has already said she wants to appeal the July 9 ruling on ballot access to the U.S. Supreme Court. Usually state officials wait a few days after a ruling comes out, before they say whether they will seek U.S. Supreme Court review.

The ruling struck down Arizona’s early June petition deadline for independent presidential candidates, and also the ban on out-of-state petitioners. Brewer seems more concerned about the deadline part of the ruling. She again says, as she did in the lower courts, that Arizona can’t decide how many pages the November ballot will be, until it knows how many independent presidential candidates there will be. It is true that Arizona general election ballots for president consume a great deal of space, because Arizona is one of only 7 states that lists all the candidates for presidential elector. However, there is no sensible reason why Arizona needs to list all the candidates for presidential elector on the November ballot. None of the other states with as many as 8 electoral votes list this information. The candidates for elector are virtually always obscure people, and if ballot space is precious, one wonders why the state insists on listing them. Arizona has 10 electoral votes.

On July 9, the news leaked out that Cynthia McKinney’s choice for the Green Party vice-presidential nomination is Rosa Clemente, 35, of New York. See here for more about her. Zentronix blog says that the McKinney-Clemente ticket would be the first in U.S. history of two women of color. However, in 1992, the New Alliance Party ticket was Lenora Fulani and Maria Elizabeth Munoz. Also in 1996, the Workers World Party ticket was Monica Moorhead and Gloria La Riva.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has this article about the McKinney campaign. Even though it was published on July 9, it doesn’t contain the news about Rosa Clemente. Instead it says the announcement about a vice-presidential candidate will come on July 11.

Thanks to IndependentPoliticalReport for the news.

On July 8, the 9th circuit heard oral arguments in Lemons v Bradbury, 08-35209, over whether the U.S. Constitution protects the right of a petition signer to have his or her signature count, if indeed the petitioner is eligible to sign. The case arose in Oregon and concerns an initiative petition. The 9th circuit panel said it would rule by the end of July, since the initiative sponsors hope to have it on the November ballot. Here is an account of the oral argument, which was held in Portland.