On January 29, Justice Frank M. Gaziano of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rejected a challenge to the Trump ballot listing in the Massachusetts Republican presidential primary. On January 30, the objectors asked the full court to overrule Gaziano’s opinion.
On January 30, Tennessee filed its brief in Darnell v Hargett, m.d., 3:23cv-1266. This is the Libertarian Party case that challenges the Tennessee petition requirement for a group to become a qualified party. Here is the state’s brief. It doesn’t even mention the Sixth Circuit decision Graveline v Benson, 992 F.3d 524 (2021), in which Michigan’s petition requirement of 30,000 signatures for a statewide independent candidate was struck down, on the grounds that it was obviously more difficult than necessary for any state interest, because it had only been used twice since it was created in 1988.
Tennessee is also in the Sixth Circuit, and Tennessee’s party petition hasn’t been used since 1968. It requires 43,498 signatures.
On January 29, Professor Seth Barrett Tillman asked the U.S. Supreme Court for 15 minutes of argument time in Trump v Anderson, the U.S. Supreme Court ballot access case. It is extremely rare for an amicus (other than the Solicitor General) to be allowed to participate in oral argument in the U.S. Supreme Court. Professor Tillman acknowledges this. But he says the briefs for both sides are failing to understand that there is a difference between “Office under the United States” and being an “Officer of the United States.” He has studied these phrases for a decade, and he feels this is an important issue and that he can help the court. Here is his filing.
On January 29, four prize-winning historians filed this amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v Anderson, 23-719, the Colorado ballot access case. They argue that the Fourteenth Amendment, Section Three, is self-executing, is still in force, and applies to presidents.
On January 26, U.S. District Court Judge Joshua Kindred, a Trump appointee, dismissed the lawsuit Castro v Dahlstrom, 1:23cv-11. This is a case to prevent Donald Trump from being on any Alaska ballot. The decision says in an indirect way that there is no substance to the lawsuit. Alaska doesn’t have a presidential primary, even though the complaint asked that Trump be kept off any primary or general election ballot.
