On February 6, the Utah Senate Government Operations & Political Subdivisions Committee passed SB 28 unanimously. It deletes a law that says the ballot label for independent candidates must include a clause that says the independent is “not qualified” to be a party nominee. The only independent candidate in Utah in 2018, a legislative candidate, learned that voters misunderstood that clause and that they seemed to think the ballot was saying she was not qualified for the office. She filed a federal lawsuit, but the state asked that the lawsuit be held in suspense until the 2020 legislature has a chance to repeal the clause.

On February 6, the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument in League of United Latin American Citizens of Texas v Abbott, 19-50214. This the case that challenges the at-large election of presidential electors in Texas. The three judges are: William E. Davis, a Reagan appointee; Jerry E. Smith, a Reagan appointee; and Carl E. Stewart, a Clinton appointee.

Here is a link to the oral argument, which lasted 31 minutes. The recording is quite faint.

On February 10, the city of Seattle filed this response in Elster v City of Seattle, 19-608. This is a case involving Seattle’s voucher system for public funding of campaigns for city office. Each registered voter has four $25 vouchers, and that voter is free to give them to any candidate for city office. The candidate can then turn them in for campaign cash, to help his or her campaign.

The money is raised by a property tax. The lawsuit was filed by a property taxpayer who argues that it violates the First Amendment to force him to pay a tax that goes toward helping a candidate he may not agree with.