On December 11, the 10th circuit refused to rehear Libertarian Party of New Mexico v Herrera, the ballot access lawsuit filed in 2006. The issue was whether the U.S. District Court should have heard the party’s evidence.

The 10th circuit did re-write its opinion slightly. The November 7, 2007 opinion had said on page 12, “Affidavits from other similarly situated minor parties, such as the Green Party, were not obtained to prove the burden imposed.” The new opinion changes “prove the burden” to “establish the character and magnitude of the injury”. Also, on page 14, the old opinion had said, “Without evidence to prove the burden of New Mexico law is severe as to minor party candidates, there was no genuine issue of material fact”; the new opinion says, “Without any evidence to prove that the New Mexico ballot-access law is unconstitutionally burdensome to minor party candidates, there was no genuine issue of material fact.”

It is Orwellian of the 10th circuit to criticize the Libertarian Party for failing to provide evidence, since the party had planned to introduce the evidence at the trial. However, the U.S. District Court had cancelled the trial, with only one business day’s warning to the witnesses and the attorneys, and thus the party was unable to present the extensive evidence it had planned to present.

The ACLU, which brought this lawsuit, might ask for U.S. Supreme Court review, or it might file an entirely new lawsuit focused on the 2008 election. That lawsuit could perhaps be filed on behalf of both the Libertarian and Green Parties, but could not be filed until these parties hold nominating conventions and nominate candidates (for office other than president). Those two parties are on automatically for president, but not other office.

According to this story in the Palm Beach Post, the District Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, does not believe that any Florida law was broken by 17 voters who appear to have voted in both Florida and New York, in the November 2006 election.

The conclusion probably wouldn’t be any different if 2006 had been a presidential election year, either. Technically, someone voting for president in two different states in the same presidential election would not be voting “twice” for any office. This is because voters in November of presidential election years are not voting for president. They are voting for candidates for presidential elector. Of course, each state is conducting a separate election for that office. So, the voter would not be voting twice for any particular office.

The New York Sun, more than any other daily newspaper in the U.S., runs frequent commentary about the possibility that New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg might run for president as an independent. The December 14 Sun ran this article, noting that at the Iowa Republican presidential debate on December 12, Senator John McCain had praised Mayor Bloomberg’s record on improving New York city schools. The story hints at the possibility that McCain and Bloomberg are forming an alliance.