On June 24, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Nader v Serody, 12-1294. Nader had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the decision of the District of Columbia courts, on whether the 2004 Pennsylvania challengers to his petition should be blocked from seizing Nader’s funds from his bank account in Washington, D.C. Nader had lost on this issue earlier, but then it had been revealed that the challengers to his petition had illegally used state employees and state computers to work on their challenge. Although certain figures in the group of challengers were criminally punished, neither the Pennsylvania state courts nor the D.C. courts would re-open the matter.

The U.S. Supreme Court order for this case says that Justice Alito did not participate in the decision on the Nader matter. Presumably that is because he had some personal connection to some Pennsylvania figures involved in the controversy.

A constitutional case is pending in the 3rd circuit over whether the Pennsylvania challenge system, which puts petitioning groups at risk of paying as much as $100,000 in costs when their petitions are found insufficient, violates the U.S. Constitution. That case is Constitution Party of Pennsylvania v Aichele, 13-1952.

On June 22, the Utah Democratic Party state convention debated whether to retain the existing system for party nominations. Utah is the only state in which both major parties use a system in which candidates seeking a nomination first compete in party caucuses. The only people who can then run in the party primary are those who had substantial support at the caucuses. See this story. Some Democrats wanted to abandon the caucuses and simply let all candidates run in the party’s primary. But proponents of the current system said that would create a need for candidates to raise more campaign funds.