The Billings Gazette here editorializes that the Montana Supreme Court ought to hear the Green Party’s ballot access appeal.
1
The Michigan Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday, July 18, on whether the initiative to set up a nonpartisan redistricting commission should be on the November 2018 ballot. See this story. The Michigan Supreme Court is elected on a partisan basis, and five of the seven justices are Republicans. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.
Everyone agrees the initiative has enough valid signatures. The opponents of the initiative say the proposal is a revision of the State Constitution, not just an amendment, and therefore the initiative process can’t be used.
Three of the four Washington State Democratic presidential electors who voted for someone other than Hillary Clinton in the electoral college in December 2016 — faithless electors — have asked the State Supreme Court to hear their appeal. They were each fined $1,000, and they maintain the fine is unconstitutional. The case is Chiafalo v State, 95347-3.
All of the other cases filed on this topic have been in federal court. The Minnesota case is pending in the 8th circuit; the Colorado case is pending in the 10th circuit; the California elector already lost in U.S. District Court on standing and didn’t appeal.
Here is the electors’ brief in the Washington State Supreme Court, filed in May 2018.
A bill in the Massachusetts legislature to implement automatic voter registration is likely to pass soon. The bill has already passed both chanbers, but the versions in each house aren’t identical, so a conference committee is being appointed to set the bill’s final language.
The bill passed the House on June 27 by 131-20, and passed the Senate on July 12 unanimously. Automatic voter registration means that every adult citizen known to exist will automatically be registered, unless he or she opts out. Automatic voting registration generally raises the validity rate of ballot access petitions. Thanks to Dan Tokaji for this news. The bill in the House is HB 4667, but for some reason in the Senate it is HB 4671.
This article about the Pennsylvania challenge process, especially the second half, has much information about how the process depends on hiring handwriting experts. The Pennsylvania challenge process no longer allows successful challengers to obtain court costs from the candidates they challenge, but challenges are still common in that state.