On July 28, U.S. District Court Judge W. Keith Watkins, a Bush Jr. appointee, refused to order Alabama election officials to notify many ex-felons that they are now free to register to vote. In the past Alabama had refused to let persons convicted of “moral turpitude” register to vote. But there was no objective standard for knowing which felonies counted, so generally election officials wouldn’t allow any ex-felon to register. But earlier this year the legislature passed HB 282, specifying which felonies are included in that term and which are not. The lawsuit is Thompson v State, m.d., 2:16cv-783.

The plaintiffs, ten voters representing a class of all affected individuals, had already filed a federal lawsuit against the old ex-felon enfranchisement policy. Because that case was still pending, they used that lawsuit to make a new demand that officials notify all the ex-felons who had previously been denied but whose felonies are not on the banned list, that they are now free to register. But U.S. District Court Judge W. Keith Watkins, a Bush Jr. appointee, said that this case cannot be used to do that. Here is his ruling denying injunctive relief. He implies that the plaintiffs should have filed a new lawsuit with a new class of voters. This part of the case had been expedited because the deadline for registering to vote in this year’s special election for U.S. Senate is July 31.

Judge Watkins is the judge who not only ruled against the Libertarian, Green and Constitution Parties in their 2012 lawsuit against the March petition deadline, he imposed court costs of $7,000 on the plaintiffs. The basis for that ruling was that the plaintiffs had missed a legal deadline to have their evidence admitted into the case. That debt has finally been satisfied, with money from the parties and also with substantial help from the Coalition for Free & Open Elections (COFOE).

The Sixth Circuit will hear George v Hargett, 16-5563, on August 2. The issue is the meaning of this part of the Tennessee Constitution concerning popular votes cast for state constitutional amendments: “If the people shall approve such amendment by a majority of all the citizens of the state voting for Governor, voting in their favor, such amendment shall become a part of that Constitution.”

This had always been interpreted to mean that if the amendment receives a number of votes greater than 50% of the vote cast for Governor, then it passes. However, in 2016, U.S. District Court Judge Kevin Sharp ruled that it really means that the individual voters who left their ballot blank for Governor cannot then vote on the constitutional amendment. If Judge Sharp is correct, that would mean when the ballots are counted, any votes cast by voters on the amendment don’t count if that voter left Governor blank.

The case arose in 2014, when a state constitutional amendment was on the ballot restricting abortion. It received 729,163 “yes” votes, and 657,192 “no” votes. But opponents of the amendment filed a federal lawsuit, saying the measure failed because election authorities didn’t disqualify the votes of people who left Governor blank. Obviously that can’t be done now. Some of the 2014 ballots don’t even exist any longer, so no one can look at each one. The gubernatorial vote in 2014 was 1,353,728; 50% of that number is 676,864. The government believed that the amendment passed because the “yes” vote was greater than 50% of the gubernatorial vote.

The Sixth Circuit panel consists of Judge Richard Suhrheinrich (a Bush Sr. appointee), Ronald Gilman (a Clinton appointee), and David McKeague (a Bush Jr. appointee).