The Washington state legislature adjourned Friday evening, April 24. SB 5978, which had passed the Senate, did not pass the House. Therefore, the law providing for a mid-May presidential primary remains on the books, but it will probably not be held. In 2012 the Washington primary was cancelled for budgetary reasons, and because the two major parties preferred to use caucuses instead.

Washington state Democrats have already said they will use caucuses in 2016. The legislature comes back into special session on April 29 so it is possible the presidential primary will be brought up then.

SB 5978 would have provided for a March 8 presidential primary.

Bills have passed committees in both houses of the Nevada legislature for a presidential primary, which would replace the state’s caucuses. SB 421 passed the Senate Legislative Operations & Elections Committee on April 10, and AB 302 passed the Assembly Legislative Operations & Elections Committee on April 9.

The Senate bill is more specific and provides for a presidential primary on the last Tuesday of February, which would be February 23 in 2016. It seems to allow any candidate to appear on the ballot just by filing a declaration of candidacy. Only parties with 10% of the registration would have a presidential primary. Candidates would file in November of the year before the election. The Senate bill is sponsored by the Committee. The Assembly bill is sponsored by the Assembly Speaker, John Hambrick. According to this story, the state Republican Party now wants a presidential primary. Both houses of the Nevada legislature have Republican majorities and the state has a Republican Governor.

The Senate bill would move the primary for non-presidential office from June to February, in all even-numbered years, even midterm years. The Assembly bill would not affect the June primary for non-presidential office.

On Friday, April 24, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether or not to hear two election law cases. One is Citizen Center v Colorado Secretary of State, 14-998, over whether the U.S. Constitution protects secrecy in voting. Citizen Center had sued the Secretary of State, and six county election officials, in 2012 because the ballot-counting equipment theoretically could have let election officials see how particular voters voted. The U.S. District Court said there is no protection for secrecy in the U.S. Constitution. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit said the election officials had mostly fixed the problem so most of the claims in the lawsuit are moot.

It is not likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear this case, because the election officials declined to file a response to the cert petition, and the U.S. Supreme Court did not then ask them to respond.

The other case is O’Keefe v Chisholm, 14-872. The case involves the behavior of Wisconsin law enforcement officials who made repeated night raids on persons suspected of illegally coordinating campaign strategies. The lead plaintiff is Eric O’Keefe, who was once the National Director of the Libertarian Party. This case has gathered much publicity. Here is a news story that explains the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court will probably reveal whether it has taken either of these cases on Monday morning, April 27.