A 3-judge U.S. District Court will hear oral arguments on Tuesday, August 25, in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v Alabama, the case that challenges the redistricting plan for both houses of the state legislature. Plaintiffs won a partial victory in the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year. They argue that the existing plan packs too many African-American voters into a limited number of legislative districts, thus reducing those voters’ ability to influence additional legislative races.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court, which had voted 2-1 to uphold the plan. The U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back to the same three judges with instructions that suggest the plan violates the 14th amendment. If the plaintiffs win the case, it is likely that all the legislative seats will be up in 2016. Normally all legislative elections in Alabama are only in midterm years, and all legislators in both houses have four-year terms.

Doug Goodman has this interesting analysis of whether there is any conflict between the Nevada Constitution and instant runoff voting.

On June 22, 2015, Level the Playing Field, Peter Ackerman, the Libertarian Party, and the Green Party, sued the FEC over presidential general election debates. Some response from the FEC is due today. Of course the FEC will probably say that it did consider the Level the Playing Field request for a new rule (on July 16, 2015), and that the FEC voted 4-2 not to consider a new rule. This case will transition from a lawsuit complaining about the FEC’s failure to respond, to a lawsuit complaining that the existing FEC regulations violate federal campaign finance law. Federal campaign finance law forbids corporations from donating to candidates for federal office. The question is whether corporate donations to the Commission on Presidential Debate effectively mean they are donating to the Democratic and Republican Party presidential campaigns.