On December 7, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take up the case Kelly v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 20A98. Justice Samuel Alito had referred the case to the entire court, which then rejected it without noted dissent from any justice.
44
On December 4, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Lovell upheld Montana’s law that bans out-of-state circulators for initiative petitions. He also upheld the Montana law that bans paying initiative circulators on a per-signature basis. Pierce v Stapleton, 6:18cv-63. Here is the 33-page opinion, which fails to mention most of the precedents striking down such laws. The judge said there isn’t enough evidence in this case to justify striking down either law. He wrote, “Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that there are not enough Montana residents to serve as circulators or that Montana residents are inferior communicators.”
Judge Lovell is a Reagan appointee, and is age 91.
The Minnesota Secretary of State has not filed any response in De La Fuente v Simon, 20-612. This is Rocky De La Fuente’s challenge to the Minnesota presidential primary law that says the party has complete control over which presidential candidates may get on its ballot. In 2020, President Trump was the only name on the Minnesota presidential primary ballot, because that was what the Minnesota Republican Party wanted.
The state’s response was due December 7, but nothing was filed. It is not unusual for states to fail to respond to cert petitions, although generally the state at least tells the U.S. Supreme Court that it won’t be responding. Minnesota didn’t even do that.
If the U.S. Supreme Court is interested in this case, it will ask Minnesota to respond.
On December 8, Pennsylvania’s Governor and Department of State filed this response in Kelly v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 20A98. This is the case in which a Republican Pennsylvania Congressmember asks the U.S. Supreme Court to stop certification of Pennsylvania’s election returns.
The Working Families Party polled 4.49% of the New York presidential vote this year. That is more than double the party’s previous best showing for president in New York, which had been 2.09%, which it received in both 2004 and 2008. Its 2016 percentage for president in New York had only been 1.83%.
The party also did well for U.S. House in New York, although the results for U.S. House aren’t final because the state still hasn’t certified the vote for any candidate in the 22nd district, because it is too close to call and there are unresolved counting issues. But setting aside the 22nd, the percentage for the Working Families Party nominees for U.S. House (almost all of whom were also Democratic nominees) was 5.67% in the districts in which the party had nominees. It had nominees in 20 of the 27 districts. That was the party’s second best showing for U.S. House in its history; the only better year for U.S. House had been 2014, when it was 6.12% in the districts in which it had nominees.