On July 6, the 4th circuit issued a 14-page opinion in Lux v Judd, 10-1997, the case challenging the Virginia law that says circulators for an independent or minor party U.S. House candidate must live in the district. The U.S. District Court had upheld the requirement, on the basis that in 1985, the 4th circuit had upheld the same residency requirement in Libertarian Party of Virginia v Davis. But now the 4th circuit says Libertarian Party of Davis is no longer binding precedent, given the U.S. Supreme Court rulings since then in 1988 (striking down a Colorado law banning paid circulators) and 1999 (striking down another Colorado law that banned circulators who were not registered to vote).
So, although the 4th circuit did not strike down the law, it is clear that it expects that the U.S. District Court should strike it down, unless the state can persuade the Court that there is a compelling state interest in the requirement. The case will probably be resolved in the next six months.
The adjective in the equal protection clause is *equal* and NOT *compelling* — an adjective dreamed up by the robot party hack SCOTUS folks.
Also – some century the SCOTUS folks might be able to detect the AREA- Elector connection.
i.e. Sovereign Electors in each AREA doing election stuff in THAT AREA — every body else is an alien from another universe.