Here is President Donald Trump’s brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v Vance, 19-635, the case over whether the Manhattan District Attorney may see the tax returns.
1
The U.S. Supreme Court web page has posted President Trump’s brief in Trump v Mazars USA, 19A545. This is the case on whether the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform may see the President’s tax returns. See here.
On November 18, the U.S. Supreme Court released the results of the November 15 conference. Once more, the two election law cases were left hanging. The Court neither accepted nor denied the Alaska campaign finance case, nor the Delaware case on whether independent and minor party members can be automatically excluded from being state judges just because of their partisan registration. Thompson v Hebdon, 19-122; and Carney v Adams, 19-309.
I greatly appreciate everyone who reads Ballot Access News blog, and especially the commenters. My google analytics program, which is supposed to tell me how many readers I have, has been broken for almost a year. So when people comment here, that is a comforting sign that there are readers. Also commenters frequently catch my errors, or my typos, or add interesting and previously unknown information, or tip us all off to news.
I also want to thank all the people who provide an income stream by becoming subscribers to the print monthly paper edition, for $18 per year. And I am really grateful to the people who donate to the Coalition for Free & Open Elections (COFOE), via the coupon on every print issue. COFOE will be filing another amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in a few days, in the California case against the requirement that independent presidential candidates must submit almost 200,000 valid signatures, gathered in only 105 days. Briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court must be printed (unless they are filed by paupers), and that costs money.
As noted earlier, the only candidate for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate, Josh Mahony, withdrew a few hours after the primary filing deadline had closed. This article says the party can replace him if he has a “serious health” problem.
When Mahony withdrew, he said there are “family health concerns” but he did not specify whose health he was talking about.
Meanwhile, this story suggests that Mahony withdrew after he was informed that the Republican Party had done opposition research on him, and found damaging information. The story says the party had this information before the filing deadline, but did not communicate it until after the hearing.