On December 15, the Colorado Democratic presidential electors who believe they have a right to vote for any presidential candidate who meets the constitutional qualifications, when they vote in the electoral college, asked the State Supreme Court to hear their appeal. The lower state court had ruled that the Secretary of State may administer an oath to the electors before they vote, even though the state election law does not explicitly authorize the Secretary of State to take such an action. See this story. Thanks to Daniel Ong for the link.

Two lawsuits regarding general election presidential debates are pending. Level the Playing Field v FEC will be heard in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., on January 5 at 10 a.m.. That was the first debates lawsuit to be filed, and it is based on campaign finance law. It has not yet had any type of decision.

The second debates lawsuit, Johnson v Commission on Presidential Debates, is now in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. It is based on anti-trust law and has already lost in U.S. District Court. The opening brief for Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in the D.C. Circuit is due January 31, 2017; the Commission’s brief is due March 2, 2017.

On December 14, attorneys for California state government filed this brief in Koller v Brown, n.d., 5:16cv-7069. This is the lawsuit in which a California Democratic presidential elector seeks to invalidate the California law that requires presidential elector candidates to vote in the electoral college for the national ticket of that elector’s party.

The state brief almost reads like a court decision instead of the brief of one side. It presents the arguments on both sides. However, it says the elector is not entitled to injunctive relief, because even though California law tells electors how to vote, California law does not have any penalty for an elector who disobeys. Therefore, the state says, Koller is not being subject to any possible harm, no matter what he does. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.