Canada will hold a parliamentary election on October 19, 2015. Polls suggest that the New Democratic Party is in a virtual tie with the Conservative Party, with the Liberals trailing badly. For most of its life, the New Democratic Party has been a strong party but not one of the two largest parties. There seems to be a possibility that the NDP will form the next Canadian government. See this story.

This is an example of how party systems can bring new parties into power. Canada does not have proportional representation but it does have equal and tolerant ballot access.

On May 26, the U.S. Supreme Court said it will hear Evenwel v Abbott, 14-940, a Texas redistricting case involving the State Senate districts. The plaintiffs are voters who live in a rural State Senate district. They argue that the 14th amendment requires that redistricting be based on the number of potential voters, not the population.

The decision to hear this case is a surprise. In 1966 the U.S. Supreme Court had said Hawaii is free to base its redistricting on number of potential voters, not population. But the plaintiffs in Evenwel v Abbott argue that it is mandatory for states to use number of potential voters rather than population. If the plaintiffs win their case, probably every state’s redistricting plan would be upset.

It is likely that Justice Clarence Thomas was the force who persuaded the Court to hear Evenwel v Abbott. Earlier he had dissented from a denial of cert in a similar case. Here is a copy of the brief of the Texas government, submitted several weeks ago, explaining why the case should be rejected. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the news.

The U.S. Supreme Court has only six more dates on which it will release opinions, this term. They are May 26, and June 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29. The only pending election law decision is Arizona State Legislature v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. However, the decision in Reed v Town of Gilbert may impact election law. That case, which is also from Arizona, concerns the constitutionality of a town ordinance that severely discriminates against some types of outdoor signs. UPDATE: the U.S. Supreme Court put out three opinions on May 26, but neither of the decisions mentioned in this blog is among them.