On November 13, Rodney Martin (national chair of one faction of the Reform Party) filed a federal lawsuit against national officers of one of the other factions of the Reform Party. The case is Martin v Byrne, 3:07-cv-5747, filed in San Francisco. The complaint says the Northern District of California is the proper venue for this lawsuit because Martin (of Yuma, Arizona) has a second home, and a business, in northern California. Martin’s lawsuit alleges that the Charles Foster (“Dallas”) faction of the national Reform Party has been spending money on attorneys, but concealing this fact by channeling it through several business corporations. The lawsuit also sues the attorneys for the Foster faction.

On November 20, a new lawsuit was filed in Florida concerning that state’s January 29 presidential primary. Ausman v Browning, in Leon County circuit court, no. 2007-ca-3233, charges that the presidential primary date is unconstitutional. The case was filed by a Florida Democratic State Committeemember and various other Democratic and Republican voters. It argues that the state is responsible for depriving Florida major party members of a meaningful vote in presidential selection. The case argues that a state political party has the right to a presidential primary date that won’t disenfranchise its voters. The case would be stronger if the Florida Democratic (or Florida Republican) Parties were co-plaintiffs.

The legal approach of this new lawsuit differs from the two cases already pending in federal court against the Florida primary date. Those cases blame the national Democratic Party for disenfranchising Florida Democrats. One of them also blames the state Democratic Party as well. The national Democratic Party is depriving Florida Democrats of all of their national convention delegates, and the national Republican Party is depriving Florida Republicans of half of their delegates, because both national parties feel the Florida presidential primary is too early. This lawsuit asks that the Florida presidential primaries be postponed to a date that is acceptable to the national parties.

The shrinking hopes for a Michigan presidential primary shrank even more on November 19. Michigan State House leaders decided not to meet on November 20. This dooms the bill that would have tinkered with the presidential primary to make it feasible.

The only slight chance for a presidential primary would be for the State Supreme Court to accept the state’s appeal in the Grebner lawsuit, and reverse the lower courts, on the issue of whether it is constitutional for the government to furnish the list of primary participants to the two major parties, and no one else.

But since the State Supreme Court didn’t accept the case on November 19, and since the decision would need to come by noon, November 21, that scenario seems unlikely.

If there is no Michigan presidential primary, the Republicans will choose their national delegates at a state convention on January 25-26. Democrats would hold caucuses, but no one knows when they would be held.