Arizona holds primary elections on February 27 for parties to choose nominees for the U.S. House special election vacancy (8th district). Three Democrats filed for the Democratic primary, but the signatures of two of them are being challenged. See this Roll Call story. Thanks to Richard Grayson for the link.
On January 19, U.S. District Court Judge Gershwin Drain issued this order in the lawsuit over straight-ticket voting, which is Michigan State A. Philip Randolph Institute v Johnson, e.d., 2:16cv-11844. The case is over whether the U.S. Constitution requires Michigan to keep the straight-ticket device, even though the legislature repealed it in early 2016. The plaintiffs argue that eliminating the device injures African-American voters.
The order says that the state’s attempt to dismiss the case fails, and that a trial will be needed to gather evidence. Pages 20-21 mentions the party logo (“vignette”) as a reason to keep the straight-ticket device. It is strange that the judge mentioned the logo, because logos were repealed in 2017 by HB 4177. Perhaps the state’s briefs have never told the judge about this change in the law.
It is unfortunate that no one has told the judge that straight-ticket voting is very harmful to independent candidates. The state doesn’t seem to be interested in making that argument, and no one has intervened in the case on behalf of independent candidates. Thanks to Thomas Jones for this news.
On January 19, the Bernie Sanders supporters who are suing the Democratic National Committee filed their opening brief in Wilding v Democratic National Committee, 17-14194, in the Eleventh Circuit. The 40-page brief lays out the basic argument, which says that persons who donated to the Democratic Party have standing to complain that the party did not observe its own rules, requiring the party to remain neutral in the race for the presidential nomination.
On January 19, attorneys for the Colorado Secretary of State filed this nine-page brief in Baca v Colorado Department of State, 1:17cv-1937. This is the lawsuit over whether presidential electors have a right to vote for anyone for president who meets the constitutional qualifications, or whether they must vote for the person who received the most popular votes in their state.
Colorado claims the plaintiffs don’t have standing, but to support that contention, it relies on precedents that say local governments can’t sue their state governments, and state legislators can’t sue state governments, in federal court.
Colorado also claims that the Twelfth Amendment, passed in 1804, was intended to make sure that the electors “carried out the desires of the people.” This seems obviously incorrect, because in the 1804 presidential election, the first election conducted under the Twelfth Amendment, six states did not have a popular vote to choose presidential electors (out of 17 states in the union at the time).
On January 19, a 3-judge U.S. District Court issued a 92-page opinion in Covington v State, m.d., 1:15cv-399. It orders the state to use districts drawn up by the court’s expert, for state legislature. The invalidated districts had already been held to be an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
This case has nothing to do with the North Carolina case over whether the U.S. House districts constitute an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. That case, Rucho v Common Cause, had resulted in a recent U.S. District Court order striking down the U.S. House districts. But on January 18, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay in that case (17A745), so the current U.S. House districts will be used in 2018. Justices Ruth Ginsburg and Elena Sotomayor voted to deny the stay. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
