On June 24, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Robert Raymond does not have standing to challenge the Alaska ban on out-of-state circulators. Raymond v Fenumiai, 13-35090. Here is the very brief opinion.

Raymond lives in Wisconsin and is a professional petitioner. His Complaint said he wanted to work on Alaska initiatives. But the U.S. District Court, and now the Ninth Circuit, says in order to have standing, he should have mentioned a particular initiative he wants to work on. The Ninth Circuit was 2-1. The dissent, by Judge J. Clifford Wallace, is longer than the decision itself, and says the panel should have remanded the case back to the U.S. District Court so that Raymond could amend his Complaint. The majority decision confines the discussion of standing to a two sentences, “‘He alleged only that he has been active on behalf of Alaska political causes before, and he intends to circulate petitions in Alaska for initiatives, referenda, and recall campaigns if the Alaska laws prohibiting him fro doing so were not enforced.’ Statements of this abstract nature do not confer Article III standing.” The decision will not be published, and it does not indicate which of the two judges in the majority wrote it. Those two judges were Morgan Christen, who formerly was on the Alaska Supreme Court, and Kim Wardlaw.

According to this Los Angeles Times story, the Iowa Democratic Party is likely to revise rules for the presidential caucus, so that voters who can’t attend in person may still participate. The Iowa major party presidential caucuses have been criticized in the past for making it impossible for some party members, especially members of the armed services overseas, to participate. Thanks to PoliticalWire for the link.

On July 1, some Mississippi voters who support Chris McDaniel for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate filed a federal lawsuit, to help them obtain evidence that the June 24 run-off results should be overturned. True the Vote v Hosemann and the Republican Party of Mississippi, northern district, 3:14cv-144.

The June 24 Republican runoff results are not official yet, but unofficially the count is: Thad Cochran 190,481; McDaniel 183,601. Mississippi law does not permit voters who voted in the primary of one party to then participate in the run-off primary of another party. McDaniel supporters believe that this law was not enforced. Here is the Complaint. The case was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Michael P. Mills, who was a Republican state representative in Mississippi 1984-1995 and then a member of the Mississippi Supreme Court 1995-2001. He is also noted for presiding over the trial of Byron De La Beckwith, who was convicted years later for the murder of Medgar Evers.

The group of voters complains that they are being denied access to the voter registration records, and the poll books that show which voters voted in each party’s primary. The case is in federal court because the federal “Motor-Voter” law of 1993 says that such records must be public.

At the first primary, on June 3, the total vote cast in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate was 318,902, a considerably smaller number than the 375,000 who voted in the runoff. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link. UPDATE: the federal law, sec. 1973gg-6, says, “(i) Public disclosure of voter registration activities. (1) Each State shall maintain for at least 2 years and shall make available for public inspection and, where available, photocopying at a reasonable cost, all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters, except to the extent that such records relate to a declination to register to vote or to the identity of a voter registration agency through which any particular voter is registered. (2) The records maintained pursuant to paragraph (1) shall include lists of the names and addresses of all persons to whom notices described in subsection (d)(2) of this section are sent, and information concerning whether or not each such person has responded to the notice as of the date that inspection of the records is made.” Thanks to Thessalia Merivaki for the text of the federal law.