Here is the text of a written letter that has just been sent to all subscribers to the print edition of Ballot Access News:

“Dear subscriber, I write this letter with mixed emotions of joy and a tinge of sadness. After four decades of dedicated work as the founder and editor of Ballot Access News, I’ve decided it’s time for me to step down.

“I’m happy to say that since 1985, when Ballot Access News began, most states have improved their ballot access laws. The number of signatures to get on the ballot for president, for example (for candidates running outside the major parties) has dropped. In 1988 it was 609,048 signatures, but in 2020 it was 568,689. Also the percentage of the vote needed for a party to remain on the ballot has declined. In 1984 the median vote requirement was 5%, but today it is 2%.

“Ballot Access News will continue to bring you the content you expect. I’m pleased to announce that my friend Bill Redpath will be taking over the newsletter. Bill shares the same passion for fair ballot access laws that I feel, and he will bring a fresh perspective on how to make the newsletter more visible. In the meantime, I’ll remain involved in an advisory capacity to ensure a smooth transition. I trust that you’ll offer Bill the same support that you’ve extended to me all these years.

“A self-addressed stamped envelope is enclosed. To help plan the future, please answer the question below, and send that part of this letter back to me. Or e-mail your answers.” The bottom part of the letter asks about preference for receiving the newsletter electronically or by postal mail.

Those of you who furnish ideas and news items are encouraged to e-mail Bill Redpath, wredpath2@yahoo.com.

On May 31, the California Assembly passed AB 421 by 60-18. It outlaws paying initiative circulators on a per-signature basis, but it makes an exception for initiatives in which the backers are able to collect 5% of the needed signatures with volunteer petitioners.

It also changes the ballot description for referenda, so that the ballot is less confusing. Referenda questions on ballots of all jurisdictions are often confusing, because “yes” and “no” are inherently ambiguous. A voter may not know whether “yes” means “Yes, repeal the law”, or “Yes, keep the law.”

On May 26, the Nevada Republican Party filed a lawsuit in state court, asking that the Secretary of state be prevented from holding a 2024 presidential primary for the Republican Party. Nevada Republican Party v State of Nevada, 1st jud. dist., Carson City, 23-0000051-1B. The Nevada Republican Party would rather use a caucus. The presidential primary for qualified major parties was passed by the Nevada legislature in 2021.

In Arizona in 1996, a state court ruled that if the Democratic Party and the Libertarian Party didn’t want the state to hold presidential primaries for them, they had a Freedom of Association right to tell the state not to hold such presidential primaries. That case was Arizona State Democratic Committee v Hull, Maricopa County Superior Court cv96-909. That is the only precedent from any state on this issue.

Here is the Nevada Republican Complaint. Thanks to Derek Muller for the link.