On October 15, the U.S. Supreme Court said it will hear Arizona v InterTribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 11-71. This is the case over whether Arizona can require extra information from newly-registering voters when they use the federal Voter Registration form. Arizona state law says that when an individual uses the federal voter registration form, extra information, mandated only by the state, must be included.

The Ninth Circuit had ruled that when Congress passed the bill for a federal voter registration form in 1993, Congress felt the questions on the federal form are sufficient. The federal form requires applicants to say under penalty of perjury that the individual is a citizen. But Arizona is not satisfied with that and wants copies of naturalization certificates, or drivers license number information or other information concerning birthplace. The case was called Gonzalez v Arizona when it was in the 9th circuit. Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was acting as a visiting Ninth Circuit judge and was part of the original 9th circuit panel that ruled against the state. This is an important case for other election law issues as well, because it tests the “Election Clause”, the part of Article One that says states may write election laws for Congress, but Congress can override them when it wishes.

The Alameda County, California Superior Court that is hearing Rubin v Bowen will hold oral arguments in Oakland on October 29 at 9 a.m. Rubin v Bowen is the case filed by the Peace & Freedom, Libertarian, and Alameda County Green Parties, against the restriction of voting rights in the general election caused by Prop. 14, the top-two primary measure.

No California court has yet ruled on the issues in this case. The lawsuits filed in San Francisco did not concern these issues. The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on these issues in any top-two case, neither the Washington state one, nor any California case. The 9th circuit mistakenly said in the Washington top-two case that the U.S. Supreme Court had already settled this issue in March 2008, but footnote eleven of the U.S. Supreme Court decision of March 2008 said the Court was not considering that issue. And this month’s refusal by the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the Washington state case again cannot be taken to mean the U.S. Supreme Court expressed any opinion on the ballot access issues.

On October 11, the Sixth Circuit struck down an Ohio law that relates to provisional ballots. Ohio has many polling stations that include multiple precincts voting in the same building. Ohio law says that if a voter casts a provisional ballot in the right building but at the wrong table (each precinct has its own table) due to poll worker error, the vote is void. The decision says that restriction on counting that particular kind of vote is unconstitutional. The case is Service Employees International Union v Husted. This issue may seem obscure, but the principle is important, and represents another instance in which an important court has ruled that election officials must treat each voter equally. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the news.