The only election law case scheduled for oral argument in the U.S. Supreme Court is McCutcheon v Federal Election Commission, 12-536, which will be heard October 8, 2013. The issue is the federal law that caps the amount of money individuals may give in any two-year cycle to all federal candidates and federal campaign committees combined.

Twelve amicus briefs in support of the Republican Party and Shaun McCutcheon (the individual who wants to exceed the limits) have been filed. They are from: (1) Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty; (2) Senator Mitch McConnell; (3) CATO Institute; (4) the Center for Competitive Politics; (5) the National Republican Senatorial Committee, jointly with the Republican Congressional Committee; (6) the American Civil Rights Union; (7) the Committee for Justice; (8) the Institute for Justice; (9) the Cause of Action; (10) the Thomas Jefferson Center; (11) a combined brief on behalf of the Tea Party Leadership Fund, the National Defense PAC, Combat Veterans for Congress PAC, Conservative Melting Pot PAC, and Freedom’s Defense Fund; (12) a combined brief on behalf of the Libertarian National Committee, the Constitution Party National Committee, the Free Speech Coalition, the US Justice Foundation, Gun Owners Foundation, English First, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Western Center for Journalism, Policy Analysis Center, Conservative Legal Defense & Education Fund.

The eight amicus briefs in support of the federal law are from: (1) the Brennan Center for Justice; (2) Americans for Campaign Finance Reform; (3) Representatives Chris Van Hollen and David Price; (4) Professor Lawrence Lessig; (5) 85 Democratic members of the U.S. House; (6) a combined brief for the Campaign Legal Center, AARP, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Common Cause, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the League of Women Voters, Progressives United, and Public Campaign; (7) a combined brief for the Communications Workers of America, Greenpeace, NAACP, Sierra Club, American Federation of Teachers, Main Street Alliance, Ourtime.org, People for the American Way, Rock the Vote, U.S. Pirg, Working Families Organization, and Demos; (8) the National Education Association.

Except for the brief of the American Civil Rights Union, the briefs in support of the Republican Party can be read here. The link, from Scotusblog, goes to the American Bar Association’s web page. Soon the same link will probably also include all the amicus briefs in support of the law. In the meantime, the briefs that aren’t linked at Scotusblog can be seen via the links in the paragraphs above.

On July 26, a U.S. District Court in Alabama issued an order in USA v State of Alabama, middle district, 2:12cv-179, in which all sides to the lawsuit agree that Alabama will make partial use of ranked-choice ballots in the upcoming special congressional election. Overseas absentee voters will receive both a ranked-choice primary ballot and a ranked-choice general election ballot. The order has no effect on voters who are not overseas.

Everyone involved is assuming that there will be a run-off primary, because of the large number of primary candidates who have already announced. Use of ranked-choice voting is the only practical way to keep to the state’s schedule for this special election intact, because of the federal law that requires that ballots be sent to overseas absentee voters at least 45 days before the primary or election. There also seems to be an assumption that there is a reasonable chance that minor party and/or independent candidates will qualify for the general election. That is why the order includes provision for ranked-choice voting (for overseas voters) for the general election as well. Here is a link to the court order. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

On May 1, 2013, five political scientists released a research paper, “A Primary Cause of Partisanship? Nominating systems and legislators.” The 26-page paper can be read here. After clicking on the link, click on the “Download this Paper” button. The paper describes the authors’ opinions about their findings. In other words, they speculate on why the theory that open primaries elect more moderate legislators turns out not to be true. The authors are Nolan McCarty, Eric McGhee, Seth Masket, Steven Rogers, and Boris Shor.