Now that President Obama has said, “We need to fix that” on election night, it is highly likely that Congress will consider many bills to improve election administration in federal elections. Obama was referring to the problem that in some states, voters had to wait in line for hours at polling places in order to vote. Here is a Washington Post article that mentions some ideas for new federal legislation. Article One authorizes Congress to pass laws on administration of congressional elections, and the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted Article One to also include presidential elections. See Oregon v Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970).

I have suggested to my member of the U.S. House, Nancy Pelosi, that she introduce a bill to provide for some means for independent candidates for Congress who did not run in a primary to be placed directly on the November ballot. Federal ballot access protection for congressional candidates is long overdue. Such a bill would protect voters who are not satisfied with the choices presented by primaries. For example, the proposed bill, if it had been in place this year, would have provided a means for voters such as those who live in California’s 31st U.S. House district to vote for someone in November who is not a Republican. Democrats far outnumber Republicans in that district, and yet this week they were forced to either vote for a conservative Republican, or not to vote at all.

Ralph Nader’s litigation on various election law issues from the 2004 election are still moving along in various courts.

Nader’s lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission, over the FEC’s refusal to even ask various state Democratic Parties and various law firms to respond to his complaint will be argued on January 14, 2013, in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. The Democratic Party spent millions of dollars in 2004 in a national effort to keep him off the ballot in as many states as possible in 2004, yet the party never reported these expenditures to the FEC. After years of stalling, the FEC dismissed Nader’s complaint, so in 2010 he sued the FEC for its failure to act. He lost in the U.S. District Court, where the judge said the FEC did not strictly follow the law but that the FEC behavior was “harmless” error. The appeal will be in front of Karen Henderson and A. Raymond Randolph (Bush Sr. appointees) and Thomas Griffith (a Bush Jr. appointee). The case is Nader v FEC.

Nader’s lawsuit against the Democratic Party, and the Maine Democratic Party, for its behavior in 2004 was set for a trial, but on October 11 the Democratic Party asked the Maine Supreme Court to stay the trial. The State Supreme Court is not likely to keep the stay intact for much longer, because that court already ruled unanimously on April 19, 2012 that the trial should go ahead.

Nader’s lawsuit to preserve his funds in his Washington, D.C. bank from being attached by Democrats who challenged his Pennsylvania petition is still pending. Although he lost last year, he asked for a rehearing, which is still pending. That case is Serody v Nader and Amalgamated Bank, in the D.C. court system’s Court of Appeals.

The Atlantic has a dramatic account of the hearing in U.S. District Court on November 7, on whether certain Ohio provisional ballots should be counted. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this fascinating link.