Rick Hasen has this list of amicus curiae briefs in Gill v Whitford, 16-1161, that are on the side that opposes the Wisconsin legislative districts. The list includes dozens of political scientists and other academicians. It is believed that no political scientist has filed any amicus on the side of the state of Wisconsin.
Gary Johnson and Jill Stein will ask for a rehearing en banc in Johnson v Commission on Presidential Debates, the case that argues that the Commission on Presidential Debates is breaking federal anti-trust laws. The original 3-judge panel had ruled against Johnson and Stein on August 29.
The petition for rehearing will go to all the full-time judges of the D.C. circuit. Judge Janice Rogers Brown, who wrote the August 29 opinion, will not be able to cast a vote on the rehearing, because she retired effective September 1, 2017. Thanks to Independent Political Report for this news.
On September 6, the Michigan House passed HB 4892 by 92-13. It says that if city officials gave out incorrect information about the deadline for candidates to file for city office this year, the deadlines can be adjusted. The bill had been introduced last month. It is needed because in four Michigan municipalities this year, city officials did not give out accurate information about the deadline.
The bill now goes to the State Senate. Thanks to Thomas Jones for this news.
This extensive Politico story about the National Popular Vote movement gives details that most articles don’t mention. It says the the strategy of the movement is to try very hard to persuade Utah to pass the plan early in 2018. The leaders of the movement feel that if one state that is completely controlled by the Republican Party passes the plan, that will make it far easier to get others to do so. Thanks to Gene Berkman for the link.
On September 5, Minnesota asked the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear Minnesota Voters Alliance v Mansky, 16-1435. This the case over Minnesota’s law, banning anyone at the polls from wearing any political clothing, or anything attached to clothing that has a political message. Minnesota’s brief can be seen here.
Although it is already established that voters can be prohibited from wearing clothing that has a message about an issue, a candidate, or a party that is on the ballot in that election, the Minnesota law is far broader. The U.S. Supreme Court appears somewhat interested in this case because it asked Minnesota to respond. Otherwise Minnesota would not have bothered to submit a brief. The lower federal courts had upheld the law. The U.S. Supreme Court has this case on its September 25 conference.
