On January 9, the New Mexico Supreme Court rejected a last-ditch appeal by the city of Santa Fe, over whether the city should use ranked choice voting in its 2018 city elections. A lower state court last month had ordered the city to use ranked choice voting. Even though the city council then authorized its use, it was still asking the State Supreme Court to reverse the lower court. But the State Supreme Court rejected the city’s request. See this story. Thanks to Howard Bashman for the link.
On January 10, a 3-judge U.S. District Court upheld Pennsylvania’s U.S. House district boundaries. The vote was 2-1. Agre v Wolf, e.d., 1:17cv-4392.
Each judge wrote separately. The two judges who upheld the districts are D. Brooks Smith, a Bush Jr. appointee, and Patty Shwartz, an Obama appointee. The dissent is by Judge Michael Baylson, a Bush Jr. appointee.
Here is each judge’s opinion: Smith; Shwartz; Baylson. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the links.
On January 10, the North Carolina legislature re-convened. Three Democratic State Senators introduced SB 702, which provides for an independent, non-partisan redistricting commission for U.S. House and legislative districting. They are Senators Erica Smith, Ben Clark, and Jeff Jackson.
On January 4, 2018, the Virginia State Board of Elections agreed to settle the lawsuit De La Fuente v Alcorn, e.d., 1:16cv-1201. The Board signed a consent decree, saying it will revise the presidential general election petition so that it no longer asks signers to add the last four digits of their Social Security number. Here is the 5-page consent decree. This is the first ballot access lawsuit filed by De La Fuente that has achieved its purpose. De La Fuente still has constitutional ballot access cases pending in Arizona, California, Pennsylvania, and Washington.
On January 9, congressmember Brendan Boyle (D-Pennsylvania) introduced HR 4742. It requires presidential nominees of political parties to have a health examination from a doctor who is under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Navy. It further requires that the results of the exam would be made public.
The bill does not say what happens if the presidential nominee does not comply. Also the bill seems not to apply to independent presidential candidates. Unlike some bills relating to tax return disclosure, there is no mention of withholding ballot access.