On September 8, the Forward Party, and the organization Open Primaries, filed this amicus in the U.S. Supreme Court in Polelle v Byrd, 25-147. This is the lawsuit filed by a Florida independent voter who argues that the U.S. Constitution does not permit closed partisan primaries.
As reported earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing a case on October 8 on whether candidates have standing to challenge an Illinois election law allowing mail ballots to arrive by three weeks after election day. Bost v Illinois State Board of Elections, 24-568. The American Civil Liberties Union and the national League of Women Voters have filed an amicus curiae brief on the side of the candidates, The amicus brief argues in favor of standing. Read it here.
It is notable when the ACLU and the League of Women Voters take a position in an election law case that, from a partisan viewpoint, is on the Republican side. This case should not be a partisan case. But when one sees the list of organizations that have filed amici on either side, it is clear that it become a partisan case. The Republican National Senatorial and Congressional Committees, and the federal government, have filed on the side of the plaintiffs, i.e., on the side of recognizing standing. On the other hand, the Democratic Party of Illinois, and seventeen states with Democratic Attorneys General, have filed on the other side.
The Missouri legislature is in special session. On September 4 the House Elections Committee passed HJR 3. It would amend the State Constitution to say that an initiative to change the state constitution cannot take effect unless it receives a majority in all eight U.S. House districts.
Also on September 4, the special committee on redistricting passed HB 1, which draws new U.S. House district boundaries.
Both bills passed on a party-line vote, with all Republicans voting in favor and all Democrats opposed.
If HJR 3 passes the legislature, the voters will vote on it.
On September 2, a cert petition was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court over North Dakota legislative redistricting. Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v Howe, 25-253. The issue is whether the federal Voting Rights Act can be enforced by private litigants, or whether only the federal government can bring a Voting Rights Act lawsuit.
After the 2020 census, the North Dakota legislature passed a redistricting plan that sharply reduced Native American representation in the legislature. The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians sued, and the U.S. District Court found in their favor. Then the state appealed, and the Eighth Circuit rejected the case on the grounds that private groups can’t bring lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act, which is a sharp departure from the 60-year history of the act. The Eighth Circuit didn’t even reach the merits of the redistricting issue.
The Louisiana Independent Party has ceased to be a qualified party, due to a legislative change earlier this year that said no party can have the name “Independent Party.” This article explains how the state is handling the voter registration records.
