As already noted, today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state initiative process can be used to change laws affecting congressional elections. Rick Hasen notes today that Article II, which describes the presidency and presidential elections, also says, “the legislature” shall pass election laws concerning presidential elections. It says, “Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…”. Hasen notes that it now seems obvious that state initiatives can also amend state laws concerning presidential elections.

This is good news for the National Popular Vote movement, which has been trying for years to get state legislatures to pass the National Popular Vote Plan. The group has had some success, but is still not close to meeting the legal requirement that states holding a majority of the electoral college must sign up before the plan goes into effect. No state has passed the plan during 2015. The National Popular Vote organization has been mulling over using the initiative process to approve the plan in certain states. Now the group can feel confident that it is constitutional to use the initiative to advance its idea. Michigan is a state that has the initiative process, and which has a fairly large number of electoral votes, and in which the voters might plausibly approve the plan.

Lou Magazzu, an experienced New Jersey politician and a Democrat, here writes about Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Although Magazzu expects Trump to seek the Republican nomination and to be formidable, Magazzu also expects Trump may run as an independent.

One slight flaw in Magazzu’s column is that he says Trump would be on the ballot in “more” ballots than either John B. Anderson in 1980 or Ross Perot in 1992. But both of them were on all ballots also.

On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Kobach v U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 14-3062. The case had been filed by the states of Kansas and Arizona over the federal voter registration forms. Kansas and Arizona wanted to alter the federal forms (that were to be used in those two states) to require applicants to attach proof of citizenship. The Tenth Circuit on November 7, 2014, had ruled that the federal agency responsible for the forms had already held exhaustive fact-finding hearings and had determined that there is no need to amend the forms. The federal agency had determined that the existing form already has enough guarantees against non-citizens using the forms.

The Kansas Secretary of State, who has been a zealot against the federal form, will now probably proceed with plans already underway in Kansas to say that the federal form only registers individuals for the purpose of voting in federal elections, not state and local ones, although that proposed policy may result in new litigation. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the news.