On June 2, the Republican National Committee released the rules for inclusion in the 2024 presidential primary debates that are sponsored by the party. The polling requirement is 1%, which is quite a contrast to the Commission on Presidential Debates’ 15% polling requirement. See this story. Thanks to Political Wire for the link.
On May 26, 2023, a lawsuit was filed in Lewis and Clark County, Montana, challenging the state constitutionality of Senate Bill 93, which was recently passed. According to The Daily Montanan, SB 93 “implements a nonrefundable $3,700 filling fee for an initiative or referendum when a proponent files the proposal; adds layers to the review process that give the attorney general and secretary of state power to reject the language of a proposal; and implements more reporting requirements on the face of the petition about its effect on business and its overall fiscal impact. Further, it prohibits a proposal from being run if a similar one was defeated in the past four years; bars the use of electronic signatures; and adds a requirement that paid signature gatherers register with the secretary of state and pay a fee of up to $100 unless they can show their inability to pay.” The complaint was filed by John Meyer, Esq. of the Cottonwood Environmental Law Center. Here is the Filed Complaint
The Tenth Circuit heard Frank v Lee, 21-8060, on May 17, 2022. The panel has still not issued its decision. The case is over the Wyoming law that does not permit First Amendment activity within 300 feet of the entrance to the polls. The U.S. District Court had struck it down, and the state had appealed. Generally courts have upheld 100-foot limits, but no greater distance.
On June 1, the Libertarian National Committee filed this brief in Libertarian National Committee v Salika, e.d., 5:23cv-11074. There are competing factions among Michigan Libertarians, and the National Committee argues that the faction it recognizes can force the other faction to cease to exist under its name, because of trademark law.
This blog post is by Richard Winger. Even though I have retired, and Bill Redpath will be adding most blog posts, I will also be adding some.
On May 17, some Indiana voters filed a federal lawsuit against the way Indiana chooses Superior Court Judges. In 89 of the 92 counties, judges are elected in partisan elections. But in Marion, Lake, and St. Joseph Counties, a merit panel chooses three potential judges for each seat, and the Governor chooses one of those three. The voters in those three counties therefore do not elect judges; all they can do is vote to accept or reject the gubernatorial choices.
The existing system for Marion County was passed after federal courts struck down that county’s old system, in which each party was only permitted to run nominees for half the seats, which meant that the voters had no choice, because generally only the Democratic and Republican Parties ran candidates for Superior Court Judge, so the elections were a foregone conclusion.
The case is Roberts v State and Holcomb, s.d., 1:23cv-828. Here is the Complaint. It charges that the unequal treatment of voters violates the federal Voting Rights Act as well as the Indiana Constitution. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for this hews.
