The U.S. Supreme Court will hold oral arguments on December 8, Tuesday, in two redistricting cases. One is Harris v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 14-232. Arizona Republicans filed this lawsuit to overturn the 2011 state legislative redistricting plan. The party argues that the plan violates one-person, one-vote by creating districts with two many voters in Republican areas, and two few voters in Democratic areas. The party also argues that the Commission handled ethnic minorities improperly. The lower court had upheld the plan.

The other case being heard on December 8 is Evenwel v Abbott, 14-940. Some Texas voters filed this case, arguing that legislative and U.S. House districts should have equal numbers of eligible voters, not equal populations. Texas, like almost all states, uses population. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the news about Evenwel.

A New Jersey state trial court will hold oral arguments in October 14 in the Republican Party’s lawsuit, arguing that the party should be allowed to substitute a new nominee for Assembly, 38th district. The election is November 3, 2015. See this story. In the meantime the court told election officials not to print any more ballots.

On October 2, the Ohio Supreme Court issued two opinions, both of them finding that when a candidate’s ballot access petition is rejected because the county board of elections determined there aren’t enough valid signatures, the candidate must be permitted to present affidavits from voters that they did sign the petition.

In State ex rel Crowl v Delaware County Board of Elections, 2015-Ohio-4097, candidate Douglas Crowl was running for Porter Township trustee, a nonpartisan election. He needed 25 signatures and submitted 28. The Board compared signatures on the petition with signatures on the voter registration forms, and determined that eight signatures didn’t look similar enough. The candidate then obtained affidavits from all eight voters whose signatures had been rejected, saying they did sign the petition. But the County Board said they could not consider such evidence. The State Supreme Court ruled 4-1 that the Board of Elections was wrong to have ignored the affidavits, and the Court ordered the candidate onto the ballot.

In State ex rel Burroughs v Summit County Board of Elections, 2015-Ohio-4122, candidate Richard Burroughs was an independent candidate for Akron city council. He needed 23 signatures and submitted 24. The county board felt that four of the signatures didn’t match. Burroughs filed a lawsuit and presented affidavits from all four voters whose signatures had been rejected, saying they had signed the petition. The Supreme Court put him on the ballot also. The vote was 4-1.

The dissenting judge said in both cases that state law has no provision for candidates to submit evidence, and called on the legislature to fix this flaw in the Ohio election law.