On September 18, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued this opinion in Applewhite v Commonwealth, 71 MAP 2012. This is the case over whether the new law, requiring voters at the polls to show government photo-ID, violates the Pennsylvania Constitution. The decision says that the lower court, which had upheld the law last month, must reconsider the case. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion says that when the Commonwealth Court upheld the law, the Commonwealth Court was guessing about too many variables concerning exactly how the new law will work. Therefore, the Commonwealth Court is instructed to hear the case again, this time with a better record. The vote was 5-2. The two dissenters would simply have invalidated the law. Thanks to Michael McDonald for the link.

On September 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, reversed the U.S. District Court in Van Hollen v FEC, no. 12-5117. The D.C. Circuit opinion has the effect of canceling a 2007 Federal Election Commission ruling that requires tax-exempt groups to report the name of everyone who contributes at least $1,000 to that group, if that tax-exempt group spends money advocating support or opposition to federal candidates.

Under the new D.C. Circuit ruling, only the names of donors who contribute with the intent that the contribution be used for campaigns must be disclosed. The new decision reimposes the old FEC rule that had been created in 2002. The old rule only requires disclosure of donors who specifically want their donations to be used for campaigning. The new decision eases the paperwork requirement for tax-exempt groups. The decision is per curiam and is signed by Judges Janice Rogers Brown, a Bush Jr. appointee; Harry Edwards, a Carter appointee; and A. Raymond Bush, a Bush Sr. appointee. The new decision reverses the U.S. District Court.

The FEC had not appealed the order of the U.S. District Court, but some intervening tax-exempt groups had appealed, so technically the name of the case then changed from Van Hollen v FEC to Center for Individual Freedom v FEC.

On September 17, a hearing was held in San Francisco Superior Court in Field v Bowen, over whether Judge Curtis Karnow’s order of August 1 could be reconsidered. The court order of August 1 said that the six plaintiffs (four voters and two candidates) who had challenged certain details of the California top-two open primary system must pay almost $250,000 to the attorneys for the forces who had intervened in the lawsuit to defend the top-two open primary law.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs had then asked for reconsideration, and that matter was set for a hearing in early October. But then, with very little notice, an attorney for the intervenors filed a document with the court, saying the reconsideration hearing should be canceled because the request for reconsideration is flawed. Judge Karnow started to hear the matter, but attorneys for the plaintiffs asked him to recuse himself. He did so. The matter was then transferred to another judge, who ruled after just a few minutes that the reconsideration hearing may proceed in October. The courtroom was filled to its capacity (45 chairs) with members and supporters of the Green, Libertarian, and Peace & Freedom Parties.

The issues in the original case were whether it is constitutional for a state to print labels on the ballots, showing which parties the candidates are registered in, for some candidates but not other candidates. Also, the case questioned whether the state could legitimately print write-in space on the ballot and yet also provide that write-in votes can never be counted. These two provisions of the law were upheld last year in the State Appeals Court, and the only remaining issue in this case is whether the people who sued should be required to pay the attorneys for the intervenors, who are Californians for an Open Primary, the California Independent Voters Project, and Abel Maldonado, former legislator and former Lieutenant Governor. Technically, the first two intervenors asked for attorneys fees, but Maldonado did not. However, the August 1 order erroneously states that all three intervenors had asked for the attorneys fees.

Ralph Nader filed an amicus curiae on the side of the plaintiffs, as did Fairvote, the National Lawyers Guild, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Steve Hill.