The number of signatures needed to get on the Pennsylvania ballot in 2008 for statewide office equals 2% of the highest vote-getter’s total in the November 7, 2007 statewide judicial races.

At the November 7, 2007 election, the highest vote was received by Seamus McCaffery, one of the Democratic nominees for Supreme Court Justice. Unofficial totals give him 1,205,930 votes. 99.4% of the precincts had been counted when that figure was released. Therefore, it is likely that the 2008 requirement will be slightly less than 25,000 signatures.

In 2004, the Pennsylvania requirement was 25,697 signatures. In 2006 it was unusually high (67,070) because there had been no judicial election in 2005, and the formula defaulted back to the 2004 election, when turnout is far higher than in odd years.

The Oklahoma initiative to improve the ballot access laws hired a paid petitioning company, when it re-launched itself on October 15. The initiative needs 74,117 valid signatures by January 14.

Only 9,000 signatures have been collected, and one-fourth of the permitted time is already gone. The problem is Oklahoma’s law making it illegal for people to circulate initiatives unless they are domiciled in Oklahoma. Although there about 40 skilled circulators who live in Oklahoma, virtually all of them are now working in other states. Although the campaign has hired 200 Oklahoma residents to circulate, they are almost entirely neophytes, and they haven’t been been bringing in enough signatures. There will be a strategy session on November 8 to see if the situation can be turned around.

On November 7, the 10th circuit ruled against the Libertarian Party’s ballot access lawsuit, for reasons having to do with court rules, not over the merits. The case is Libertarian Party of New Mexico v Herrera, no. 06-2303.

The case had been filed in 2006, after the Libertarian Party had successfully petitioned for party status. Under New Mexico law, even though the party was now ballot-qualified, it was required to submit a petition signed by 1% of the last vote cast, for each of its nominees. The U.S. District Court had scheduled a hearing to gather evidence, but had cancelled the hearing only 3 days before that hearing. The U.S. District Court had then ruled that no possible set of facts could result in the law being held unconstitutional, since in 1971 the U.S. Supreme Court had upheld petitions of 5% for independent candidates and for the candidates of unqualified parties.

The party had appealed, but the 10th circuit said that the party is not entitled to relief because it it made a procedural error. Specifically, the 10th circuit said the party’s Rule 56(f) Motion, asking for a chance to present evidence, wasn’t detailed enough. As to the merits of the case, the 10th circuit said “We need not resolve this.”

Any qualified party in New Mexico that is entitled to nominate by convention, and not by primary, is free to file a similar lawsuit in the future.