In 2013, Jane Miller, a Republican in Brookfield, Connecticut, accepted a Democratic nomination for a special local election. She did not win. In April 2015, long after that election, the town Republican Party expelled her, under a little-used state law that lets parties expel members who are believed to be disloyal to the party.

Miller brought lawsuits in both state and federal court. Her state lawsuit alleged that the state law is unconstitutional, and her federal lawsuit charged that she had been denied equal protection because other Republicans who had also accepted the nomination of other parties had not been treated the same. On July 19, the town Republican Party reinstated her as a member, but both lawsuits continue, and the Republican Party still stands by its past action. Miller was not able to vote in the Connecticut April 2016 Republican presidential primary, so she does have a concrete injury. See this story.

The Commission on Presidential Debates had chosen Dayton, Ohio, for the first presidential debate. That was set for Monday, September 26. However, on July 19, Wright State University, the location for that debate, said it cannot handle the debate. See this story. Thanks to Steve Linnabary for the link.

On July 19, U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Adelman, a Clinton, issued an order in Frank v Walker, e.d., 11-cv-1128. This is the case filed in 2011 over Wisconsin’s law requiring voters at the polls to show photo I.D. The order says the state must let voters vote if they sign a declaration at the polls that says, under penalty of perjury, that they have been unable to obtain photo I.D. The form will list a checkbox of possible reasons: “lack of transportation, lack of documents, work schedule, disability or illness, family responsibilities, or other (fill in blank).”

Here is the 46-page decision. The part of the decision starting at page 20 explains the barriers that some voters face when they try to take advantage of the state law that permits them to obtain a free I.D. The free I.D. can’t be issued without documents proving the person’s identity. The decision goes into details of the difficulties this causes for certain particular voters.