On September 5, the California legislature passed AB 421, a bill that would have made it more difficult for referenda and initiatives to get on the ballot. But those provisions were taken out of the bill before it passed. Now the bill simplifies the ballot when a referendum is on the ballot. A referendum is a petition to stop a new bill that the legislature had recently passed. California has had the referendum since 1911. Referenda on California ballots have long been confusing, because there would inevitably be puzzlement about whether a “yes” vote means, “Repeal that new law”, or “Keep that new law.”

The bill provides that when a referendum is on the ballot, the ballot will ask the voters, “Overturn the law” or “Keep the law.”

AB 421 originally outlawed paying circulators on a per-signature basis. It also said that 5% of the signatures had to be from unpaid circulators. Those provisions were removed from the bill, probably because Governor Gavin Newsom had told the legislature that if they remained in the bill, he would veto the bill. He had previously vetoed such bills. So had his two precedessors, Governors Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

As passed, AB 421 also gives the sponsors of a referendum more flexibility to remove their measure from the ballot, should the legislature react to the referedum petition by repealing part of the law the referendum sponsors didn’t like. And it adds a law that information about the two top financial backers of the referendum should be mentioned in the Voter’s Guide that is mailed to all California voters.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear Vidal v Elster, 22-704, on November 1, Wednesday. The issue is the federal trademark law, the Lanham Act, and whether an individual should be permitted to trademark the political slogan “Trump Too Small” for use on T-shirts he sells. The Lanham Act does not permit trademarks that mention a living person without his or her permission. But the Federal Circuit had struck down that law on First Amendment grounds.

Public Citizen has filed this amicus curiae brief, which argues that the Supreme Court should rule that trademark law cannot be used to trademark political slogans. If a trademark is granted for political slogans, that restricts the ability of non-trademark holders to voice such political slogans.

If the Court writes an opinion on that point, there might be an impact on the Libertarian National Committee’s attempts to use trademark law to adjudicate intra-party disputes.

The upcoming U.S. Supreme Court opinion might also influence the outcome of Mazo v Way, the New Jersey lawsuit against the state law restricting ballot slogans on primary ballots. The New Jersey law does not allow a slogan that mentions a living individual with that individual’s permission.

On a Libertarian National Committee Executive Committee Zoom meeting on Wednesday, September 6, 2023, Libertarian Party of Maine Chair Harrison Kemp reported that the LPME now has about 2,500 registered voters, with another 1,500 voter registration cards about to be turned in to the state for validation. Projecting about an 80% validity rate on those new voter registrations, the LPME would have about 3,700 registered voters, or about 1,300 short of the 5,000 needed to be a recognized political party in Maine.

If the 5,000 figure is achieved, the LPME would become a recognized political party in Maine, which would entitle the LPME to place the Libertarian Party’s 2024 presidential ticket on the ballot in Maine, and make possible for down ticket candidates to get on the ballot with fewer signatures than if the LPME were not a recognized party in Maine.

The LNC’s Executive Committee voted to encumber $7,500 for this voter registration drive, which the LPME Chair thinks will be completed by November 2023.