Pennsylvania Supreme Court Explains Why It Kept Two Libertarians Off Ballot Last Year

On January 19, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an opinion in In re: Nomination Papers of Kosin and Avery, 92 MAP 2022. The case concerned how to interpret the “sore loser law”. Caroline Avery and Brittany Kosin had submitted petitions to run in the 2022 Republican primary, for U.S. House and State House. But they withdrew those petitions and then filed new petitions to be Libertarian candidates in the general election. However, they were both challenged and the challenges had been upheld by lower state courts. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion says that the lower courts were correct to keep the candidates off the ballot. The Pennsylvania “sore loser law”, the Court explains, covers candidates who submitted petitions to run in a primary, even if they withdrew those primary petitions later.

There had been an old precedent in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that came to a different conclusion, but the new opinion finds some technical differences between the old precedent and the new situation. Here is the opinion.

Missouri Bill to Restore Presidential Primaries

Missouri Representative Eric Woods (D-Kansas City) has introduced HB 738, to restore presidential primaries in Missouri. Although Missouri held presidential primaries in 2020, the legislature that year passed a bill ending them in future elections.

Representative Woods has also introduced HB 739, to use ranked choice voting for all Missouri partisan elections, in both the primaries and the general election. Thanks to Ken Bush for this news.

New Mexico Bills to Let Independents Vote in Partisan Primaries Without Joining the Party Whose Primary Ballot They Had Chosen

Five New Mexico Democratic legislators have introduced HB 54 and SB 73. They would allow independent voters to choose a partisan primary ballot on primary day. And such voters would not need to join the party whose primary ballot they had chosen. The sponsors are Senators Bill O’Neill and Siah Hemphill, and Representatives Dayan Hochman-Vigil, Natalie Figueroa, and Meredith Dixon.

D.C. Circuit Holds Oral Argument on Jill Stein’s Matching Funds Lawsuit from 2016

On January 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. circuit, heard oral argument in Stein v Federal Election Commission, 21-1213. The three judges are Karen Henderson (a Bush Sr. appointee), Robert Wilkins (an Obama appointee), and Gregory Katsas (a Trump appointee). The issue is whether Jill Stein, Green Party presidential nominee in 2016 must repay $175,000 in primary season matching funds. Stein has two arguments, a constitutional argument and a statutory interpretation argument, and either one by itself would relieve her of the need for any repayment.

The hearing seems to have gone reasonably well, and the oral argument link will be available later. Check back if that is interesting to you.