Today the Michigan State Court of Appeals ruled such in the case Davis v. Wayne County Election Commission and Donald J. Trump, no. 368615.
Here is the Michigan Court of Appeals ruling.
The decision leaves open the possibility that Trump could be barred from the November ballot, but says that issue is not ripe.
A lawsuit is currently pending in New Jersey, in federal court, over the state’s discriminatory ballot format in primaries. Candidates backed by the major party organizations enjoy a much more prominent spot on Democratic and Republican primary ballots. The lawsuit was filed in 2020 and has moved slowly. But on December 8, the court said discovery must be completed by July 28, 2024. “Discovery” refers to depositions and interrogatories, which are procedures that witnesses fulfill. Conforti v Hanlon, 3:20cv-8267.
On December 7, John Anthony Castro dismissed his anti-Trump Massachusetts ballot access case. Castro v Galvin, 1:23cv-12121. He had already lost in the First Circuit in his New Hampshire case, and Massachusetts is also in the First Circuit, so the Castro Massachusetts case clearly could not have succeeded.
Also on December 7, he dismissed his Montana case, Castro v Jacobsen, 6:23cv-62.
On December 14, the group that has the website “NoLabels.com” filed its brief in its trademark dispute with No Labels. The political party known as No Labels had sued the people who run the website “NoLabels.com” on December 4, alleging that “NoLabels.com” is violating the No Labels trademark.
NoLabels.com first points out that No Labels originally had title to the website name, but voluntarily gave it up. As to the trademark issue, NoLabels.com says that there is no single entity “No Labels” anymore, because the party has qualified for the ballot in a dozen states, so there are now numerous No Labels entities, one in each state in which the group is ballot-qualified.
Here is the brief of NoLabels.com.
On December 7, an organization representing incarcerated persons filed a federal lawsuit in Delaware, to protect the ability of such individuals to vote. People who are in jail for a misdemeanor, and persons who are in jail pending trial, are theoretically permitted to vote in Delaware and all states. However, in practice, in Delaware, they cannot. Prisoners Legal Advocacy v Carney, 1:23cv-1397.
The state claims that such persons may vote absentee, but the law says they can only do so if they allege that they need an absentee ballot for reasons related to their employment. The plaintiffs argue that this conclusion is neither plausible nor is it safe to prevent prisoners from being charged with vote fruad. The case is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika, a Trump appointee. Here is the Complaint.
