On September 27, the Democratic and Libertarian candidates for Indiana Secretary of State debated each other. The Republican nominee declined to appear. The debate was sponsored by the Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Indiana, and was broadcast on zoom.
On September 26, U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow, a Bush Jr. appointee, enjoined a new Arizona law that seems to make it a felony for anyone to give a voter registration application to someone who is already registered in a state outside Arizona. Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans v Hobbs, 2:22cv-1374.
The law says it is a crime for anyone to give a “mechanism for voting” to someone registered already outside of Arizona. The state tried to defend the law by saying a “mechanism for voting” does not include a voter registration form. The state says a “mechanism for voting” is a ballot. However, the law also banned giving a “ballot” to a voter registered outside Arizona, so it is obvious that a “mechanism for voting” must mean something beyond just a ballot.
This is an example of a legislature passing a poorly-written law. It is a bedrock principle that when legislature pass laws making certain activities crimes, those laws must be specific. Here is the opinion.
This CATO article by Andy Craig says the First Amendment freedom of association clause protects the ability of two parties to jointly nominate the same candidate if they wish. It says the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong to uphold a ban on fusion in Timmons v Twin City Area New Party.
UPDATE: a slight error in the he article has been corrected. The story originally said Earl Warren was the nominee of three parties in California in 1946. He was the nominee of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, but not the Progressive Party. There was no Progressive Party on the ballot in California in 1946. The Prohibition Party was the only third party in California that year, but it had its own nominee.
In August 2022, Florida recognized the “Coalition with a Purpose Party”. Parties in Florida become ballot-qualified by submitting a list of party officers and bylaws. The party does not seem to have a website, and anyone who has information about this party is urged to leave a comment.
UPDATE: thanks to Jim Riley for finding the party’s website. Here is the Party’s Constitution. It seems to offer no clue about what policy positions the party supports.
On September 23, James R. Adams won a procedural victory in U.S. District Court, in Adams v Carney, 1:20cv-1680. This is the case that challenges the Delaware law that requires most state judges to be registered members of the Democratic or Republican Party. The ruling says he does have standing.
This is the second lawsuit Adams has filed against the Delaware restriction. In the first one, he won in U.S. District Court and in the Third Circuit, but then the U.S. Supreme Court said he lacked standing because he hadn’t actually concretely applied for a judicial post. After that decision, Adams did concretely apply for various judicial appointments, and he has now done so five times. Therefore, his new case is stronger.
Because he already won on the merits in the first case, in the Third Circuit, it seems very likely that he will win his new case soon. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for this news. Here is the 21-page decision, which is by U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika, a Trump appointee.
