Last year, U.S. Senator Roland Burris of Illinois desired to run in the special election for U.S. Senate in November 2010 (for the two-month short term), but the 7th circuit ruled before the election that the only candidates who could be listed on the November 2010 ballot for that seat were candidates who were already on the ballot for the regular election for that same seat. Last year, Burris asked the U.S. Supreme Court to put him on the ballot, but the Court refused him injunctive relief. Nevertheless, Burris also asked the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a declaratory ruling. On November 3, 2010, the Court seemed to show interest in his case, and asked the other side to file response briefs.

The response briefs have now been filed. Here is the response of the Illinois Attorney General. Here is the response of the voters who filed the original lawsuit, demanding an early special election for the U.S. Senate seat. This is a 3-cornered fight, in which the voters who filed the original case, Senator Burris, and the state of Illinois, all have their own legal positions and their own ideas of what should have happened. The brief of the voters does not even address the most interesting part of this case, which is whether ballot access in one election can be made literally impossible for any candidate who isn’t running in some other election. The state’s brief does address that, at pages 21-22.