On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear ProtectMarriage.Com v Padilla, 14-434. This California case raised the question of whether proponents of a particular ballot initiative deserve to keep the names and addresses of their contributors secret. The initiative banned same-sex marriage. The proponents had evidence that individuals known to have supported that ballot measure were subject to harassment. Back in 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that the Socialist Workers Party was entitled to such protection against disclosure.

One of the UKIP’s two members of the British House of Commons is advocating electoral reform, which probably means either ranked-choice voting or proportional representation. See this story. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.

On February 27, the Ohio Libertarian Party requested a ruling from a U.S. District Court that the Court keep the party on the ballot for the 2015 local partisan elections. The party is awaiting a ruling from the same court on whether the new procedures for parties to get on the ballot (the bill passed in November 2013) is constitutional. In the meantime the party has some candidates in some local partisan 2015 elections.

The recent motion points out that the new law, passed in 2013, doesn’t even make it possible for a party to petition its way onto the ballot for odd year elections. Thanks to Steven Linnabary for the link.