The Pennsylvania parties that were considered by the state to be “qualified” political parties until November 2006 (the Constitution, Green and Libertarian Parties) are planning a new election law challenge to several Pennsylvania election policies. Other parties may join as well.

One part of the case will charge that many Pennsylvania counties are illegally refusing to tally any write-in votes. The parties are likely to unite behind a single write-in candidate in the partisan State Supreme Court Judicial race being held on November 6, 2007. Counties that fail to tally any write-ins will be confronted by affidavits from voters who will swear that they cast such a write-in. In November 2006, 22 counties (including Philadelphia) did not tally any write-in votes for any office, and that pattern is likely to repeat in November 2007.

Another part of the case may challenge Pennsylvania’s refusal to provide the parties with a list of their registered members. Lawsuits from Colorado, Oklahoma, New York, New Jersey and Iowa have won on this issue.

Still another part of the case may challenge the unique Pennsylvania practice of charging candidates for the large administrative costs of determining if their petitions are valid.

Finally, the case is likely to challenge the law that requires unqualified parties to circulate petitions to get their candidates on the ballot. Specifically, the wording on such petitions will be challenged. The petition forms say that the signers “hereby nominate” the listed candidates. During the 2006 ballot access litigation, the state hotly denied that petition signers are really nominating the listed candidates. The court agreed that petition signers are not really nominating those candidates. Therefore, the lawsuit will probably argue that the petition forms themselves are improperly worded and should be replaced with “I hereby request that the listed party should be placed on the ballot”, or something similar. Similar lawsuits against misleading petition wording have been successful in 6 other states (Kentucky, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota, and West Virginia) in the past.

On October 17, veteran New Hampshire legislator Jim Splaine published this commentary on why a December 11, 2007 presidential primary date would be desirable. The following day, New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner, speaking at the University of New Hampshire, said he very well may set the date on December 11, and that he won’t decide until November 2 at the earliest.

News media are reporting that Sam Brownback will withdraw from the Republican presidential race on Friday, October 19. That will make the third Republican who was permitted to participate in presidential debates this year, who then withdrew. The others have been Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin and Jim Gilmore of Virginia. This phenomenon, of major party members campaigning during most of the odd year before a presidential election, and then dropping out before any voting has taken place, is relatively new in U.S. presidential politics.