On November 13, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Wittman v Personhuballah, 14-1504, a redistricting case from Virginia. The lower court 2-1 had invalidated Virginia’s U.S. House district boundaries. The issue is whether the plan packed too many African-American voters into one district, thus diminishing their influence in neighboring districts.

This is the fourth redistricting case the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing this term. The others are: (1) Shapiro v McManus, 14-990, which was argued on November 4, 2015; (2) Evenwel v Abbott, 14-940, which will be argued December 8, 2015; (3) Harris v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 14-232, which will be argued December 8, 2015.

The reason the Court hears so many redistricting cases is that a federal law requires that challenges to U.S. House districts must be heard by 3-judge U.S. District Courts. Any appeal from those courts goes directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court must either then hear the case, or rule summarily that the lower court was correct. Unlike the vast majority of cases, the Supreme Court is obliged to express an opinion.

The issue in Shapiro v McManus is whether it is really true that every challenge to a U.S. House redistricting plan needs a three-judge court. In that case, from Maryland, a single U.S. District Court judge determined that the case was not serious and therefore no three-judge court was convened.

Matt Erard, a Michigan Socialist Party activist, has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his ballot access case. The Supreme Court ruled in 1968 in Williams v Rhodes that states cannot make it more difficult for parties to get on the ballot than to stay on the ballot. Specifically, the court ruled against Ohio, partly because Ohio required 15% support to get a new party on the ballot, but an old party could remain on as long as it polled 10% of the vote.

Michigan also requires more support for a new party to get on the ballot than for an old party to stay on the ballot. However, the lower federal courts still refused to invalidate the Michigan law. Here is the Michigan cert petition.

On November 10, a lawsuit was filed against several Alaska laws that limit contributions to candidates. Thompson v Dauphinais, 3:15cv-218. The case was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge H. Russel Holland, a Reagan appointee.

The lead plaintiff is a Wisconsin resident who is also the brother-in-law of a Republican Alaska state legislator. The plaintiff, David Thompson, wants to contribute to the re-election campaign of his brother-in-law, but he can’t, because the law limits out-of-state donations to candidates for state and local office to $3,000. The legislator has already received that much in out-of-state contributions.

A unit of the state Republican Party is a co-plaintiff. It wants to contribute to a candidate for local office, but it can’t, because all units put together of a single party can’t contribute more than $5,000 to any candidate for state or local office, and the various units of the Republican Party, including the state party, have already contributed $5,000 to the candidate. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the news.