David Korn, writing for Mother Jones, asserts that No Labels ought to be revealing its donors. He says that the basis for No Labels’ refusal to disclose its donors so far is because No Labels claims it is not a political party. Korn then mentions that No Labels is a ballot-qualified party in several states.

The real reason No Labels need not reveal its donors so far is because it has never had any candidates. The U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, ruled in Unity ’08 v FEC, 596 F.3d 861 (2010), that a similar group, Unity ’08, need not reveal its donors, even though it was working to qualify for the ballot as a party, because “Unity08’s proposed method of generating nominees was such that neither dnoors nor candidates would know at the time of the donations which candidate would ultimately benefit from the group’s convention.”

On June 27, 2023, U.S. District Court Judge James L. Graham denied relief to Sarah Thomas Hoover, a Republican who was kept off the ballot in November 2022 even though she was her party’s nominee for Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas. Koover v LaRose, s.d., 2:22cv-3468.

She had run in the May 2022 Republican primary for a different judicial position. Later, the Common Pleas seat became vacant due to the resignation of the incumbent. In such special election situations, Ohio law lets parties choose a nominee without the need for a primary. The Republican Party chose her as its nominee, but because she had run for a different position earlier that year, the Board of Elections and the Secretary of State kept her off the ballot. Therefore the Democratic Party nominee was the only candidate listed on the November ballot.

Judge Graham said that the “sore loser” law is constitutional in general. He wrote that if the plaintiff had filed an “as applied” claim, she might have won the lawsuit. He said the justifications for the “sore loser” law are not peruasive in a sitution like this. He said, “The unusual situation where a primary election loser desires election to since-vacated office is unlikely to confuse voters or cause a substantial increase of work for county board of elections.” But apparently her briefs made a general attack on the sore loser law instead of an “as applied” challenge, so she lost the lawsuit. Here is the eight-page opinion.

An initiative idea has been filed with the Secretary of State of North Dakota. Signatures should start to be collected soon. It would provide that no one could run for Congress who would be as old as age 81 by the end of the term. See this story.

In 1995 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that neither states, nor congress, can add to the constitutional qualifications for service in Congress. U.S. Term Limits v Thornton. But the vote was 5-4 and the composition of the Supreme Court has changed since 1995. Also, the North Dakota initiative provides that in case the main point of the measure is held unconstitutional, and North Dakota can’t limit the age of congressional candidates, that the ballot should show for each candidate the age he or she would be at the end of the term.