On May 28, the 5th circuit reversed a U.S. District Court in the Mississippi Democratic Party’s lawsuit. Here is the decision. The U.S. District Court had ruled that Mississippi must give the Democratic Party an opportunity to close its primary to outsiders. The 5th circuit said that the case should be dismissed, because the Democratic Party has not passed any Bylaws on closing its primaries, and because it has not asked the U.S. Justice Department, Voting Rights Section, to preclear such bylaws. Mississippi is one of the states covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which means that neither the government, nor political parties, may change election rules without getting approval from the federal government.

The case is Mississippi State Democratic Party v Barbour, 07-60667. The decision erroneously cites a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Renne v Geary, to strengthen itself. The 5th circuit decision says, “MSDP’s situation more closely resembles that of the Democrat Party in Renne v Geary. The party challenged a California statute that prohibited political parties from endorsing candidates for nonpartisan office.” This sentence is factually erroneous. The Democratic Party was not a plaintiff in Renne v Geary, which is why the U.S. Supreme Court said the plaintiffs (various county central committee members of the San Francisco Democratic Party) didn’t have standing. In the current Mississippi case, the Democratic Party is a plaintiff. The 5th circuit opinion is by Judge Edith Jones, who shows her bias by referring to the Democratic Party as the “Democrat Party.” She is somewhat well-known for being a partisan Republican. Thanks to Steve Rankin for the news.

The Constitution Party of New Mexico has been told that its petition has enough valid signatures. Similarly, the Party for Socialism and Liberation has been told that its Arkansas presidential petition has enough valid signatures.

On May 27, Judge Robert H. Hobgood signed a 17-page opinion, upholding North Carolina’s ballot access laws for new and previously unqualified parties. Judge Hobgood is a Superior Court Judge in Wake County. Superior Court Judges in North Carolina do not have law clerks, so it is customary for judges to ask each side to write a proposed opinion. In this case, Judge Hobgood signed the opinion that had been written by the Attorney General’s office. The only reasons this opinion mentions for upholding the petition requirement are that any lesser restriction would result in a large ballot, which would cause election-administration problems.

Since this opinion was written by the Attorney General’s office, it naturally omitted a great deal of evidence that this fear is unfounded. The plaintiffs, the Libertarian and Green Parties, will appeal.

No lower state court has ever held that its state requires too many signatures to place a party, or a candidate, on the ballot, under the constitution (whether federal constitution or state constitution). The only state courts that have ever declared the number of signatures unconstitutional have been the highest state court in that state. These instances were in New York in 1912, Michigan in 1981, Alaska in 1982, and Maryland in 2003. In all four cases, the lower courts had upheld the challenged laws.

The opinion has no immediate impact on the Libertarian Party, since it completed this year’s petition anyway. But it will keep any other party from qualifying this year. The law requires 69,734 valid signatures this year, and probably 80,000 or so in 2010.