On June 10, the Tennessee Supreme Court removed Bobby Starbuck Newsom from the August 2022 Republican primary ballot. He has been trying to run for U.S. House this year, but the Republican Party has a new bylaw, barring candidates in its primary who did not vote in three of the last four Republican primaries. Newsom couldn’t comply with that because he hasn’t lived in Tennessee long enough.

First he sued in federal court, charging that the new rule imposes a qualification to run for congress that is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but the U.S. District Court ruled against injunctive relief. Then he dismissed his federal case and sued the Republican Party for having violated the state’s open meetings law when it removed him. He won injunctive relief in the state trial court, but the Tennessee Supreme Court has reversed that, saying the open records law only applies to political parties when they are acting as an election administration body. Here is the 7-page decision in Newsom v Tennessee Republican Party, M2022-00735.

On June 9, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-3, decided to accept for the time being the Third Circuit ruling that allows postal ballots to be counted, even if the voter forgot to add the date next to his or her signature. In Pennsylvania, all postal ballots are date-stamped when received by the election administration office. Thus, the Third Circuit felt the failure of the voter to add a date didn’t really matter.

The Third Circuit had depended on the “materiality” provision of the federal Voting Rights Act, which says, in essence, that no one should be deprived of the vote just because of a paperwork error that doesn’t make any practical difference.

Justices Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch were in the minority, and Justice Alito wrote for the three of them. See his reasoning here. He wants to interpret the “materiality” clause in a very narrow manner. It is possible the Court will accept the case, Ritter v Migliori, 21A772, in the near future, if the 2021 candidate who lost in the Third Circuit wants to bother.

The “materiality” clause has been used in the past to strike down very strict rules for petitions, so it is helpful to ballot access if interpreted broadly.

On June 8, the Nevada Supreme Court heard Helton v Nevada Voters First, 84110. This is a lawsuit filed by opponents of the top-five initiative. The opponents charge that the top-five initiative violates the single subject rule, because it includes both an abolition of the ability of parties to have nominees, as well as ranked choice voting. See this story, which describes the oral argument. Thanks to Fairvote for the link.