On November 1, Marc Victor, the Libertarian nominee for U.S. Senate from Arizona, asked voters to vote for Blake Masters, his Republican opponent. Victor remains on the ballot and a great many votes have already been cast. UPDATE: former Congressman Justin Amash says that he himself, as a Libertarian, disagrees with Victor’s decision. See here.

FURTHER UPDATE: see this Reason article.

Victor said he asked both the Democratic nominee, incumbent Mark Kelly, and Masters, to discuss public issues on a 30-minute zoom call that would be broadcast. Apparently Senator Kelly did not accept, but Masters did. Here is a link to the Victor website, which has a link to his discussion with Masters. Masters did not agree to support the legalization of marijuana; he said it should be a matter of state law. Masters would not outlaw putting a monument to the Ten Commandments on public property. But Victor overlooked both points of disagreement and endorsed Masters.

As already noted, on September 30, a U.S. District Court in Arkansas struck down the 3% (of the last gubernatorial vote) petition requirement for new or previously unqualified parties. October 31 was the deadline for the state to appeal, yet nothing has been filed, so it appears the state will accept the decision.

It is theoretically possible for the state to file something before midnight, but it seems unlikely that such paperwork would be filed after the close of business.

On October 28, U.S. District Court Judge James R. Sweeney, a Trump appointee, issued an order in Indiana Green Party v Sullivan, s.d., 1:22cv-518. This is the case that challenges the Indiana ballot access laws for independent candidates and the nominees of unqualified parties. The order rejects the state’s request to dismiss the case without even holding a trial. The state said that because the Indiana petition (2% of the last vote cast for Secretary of State) was upheld in the Seventh Circuit in 1985 (when the 2% petition was only two years old), therefore the case should be dismissed. But the judge wrote that “it has been 37 years since Hall was decided. Both the law and the facts have changed…It is far too early for the Court to say that no relief is possible on the facts as alleged.”