On October 31, Texas filed this brief in Bilyeu v Esparza, w.d., 1:21cv-1089. This is the lawsuit over the Texas law that requires people who seek nomination at a convention to first pay a filing fee. The state says it has an interest in treating all candidates equally, which is a comical statement given the Texas rules for independent candidates (who need extremely difficult petitions), contrasted with the fact that Democrats and Republicans can get on a primary ballot with no petition.
On the Wednesday, November 1, 2023 “The Bulwark” podcast, hosted by Charlie Sykes, guest Ben Wittes, Editor in Chief of Lawfare, predicted that once any court rules that Donald Trump is ineligible for a state’s ballot in 2024 under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution (and Wittes thinks that is inevitable), the issue will quickly get elevated to the US Supreme Court for it to render a decision on the matter.
Here is a link to the podcast. The relevant discussion is between the 19 and 26 minute marks. There is also a transcript of the conversation between Sykes and Wittes.
Here is a story on today’s Minnesota Supreme Court hearing on Donald Trump’s eligibility to appear on ballots in Minnesota in 2024.
The justices expressed skepticism that states or that particular court had the power to bar presidential candidates from ballots.
Video of the hearing is available at the link.
On November 2, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched a verbal attack on No Labels. See this story. Thanks to Gene Berkman for the link.
On November 1, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Vidal v Elster, 22-704. The case concerns the interplay between trademark law and free speech. Specifically, it is about whether someone can trademark a political slogan. The decision, when it comes, may affect the Libertarian Party’s intra-party dispute in Michigan, which hinges on trademark law.
One can read the transcript at this link.
