On December 16, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Minnesota Majority v Mansky, 13-185. The case concerned a Minnesota law that says, “A political badge, political button, or other political insignia may not be worn at or about the polling place on primary or election day.” The law is interpreted to cover the area around the polling place, up to 100 feet. The case has been filed in 2010 by individuals who wanted to wear buttons. Some of the plaintiffs were election day monitors who wanted to wear buttons that said, “Please I.D. Me.” Other plaintiffs wanted to wear buttons that said “Tea Party Patriots.”

Here is the 8th circuit opinion upholding the law, which was 2-1 and which had been issued on March 6, 2013. That decision conflicts with a U.S. District Court decision from Arizona in 2010, which said that voters were free to wear a tea shirt that said, “Flagstaff Tea Party.” Thanks to several readers for the news.

On December 17, the Arizona Supreme Court issued a brief order, reversing the State Court of Appeals and approving the new higher contribution limits for individuals who give to candidates for state office. The Court said it would explain its reasoning later. The case is Arizona Citizens Clean Election Commission v Bennett, cv13-0233-SA.

The 2013 legislature had increased the contribution limits. The Clean Elections Commission then sued, arguing that because the bill did not pass with 3/4ths majorities in each house of the legislature, it is invalid. The public funding law says that the legislature can’t amend the public funding program without a 3/4ths majority in each house. Therefore, the issue was whether the contribution limits are intrinsically part of the public funding program or not.

The Commission that administers the public funding program does not like higher contribution limits because the Commission believes that will discourage candidates for state office from using the public funding program. See this story.

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has established a web page, SpeakUp Oklahoma, which invites readers to suggest improvements for Oklahoma laws. Oklahomans for Ballot Access Reform is publicizing this, and is asking Oklahomans to use the site, to suggest ballot access reform.

Oklahoma voters have not been permitted to vote for anyone for President, other than the two major party nominees, in each of the last three presidential elections. There are only two other instances of any other state that ever gave voters such restricted choice for President, for three or more elections in a row. One was Ohio in the years 1952 through 1964. The other was Nebraska, 1940 through 1964.

Although certain other states also had several years in a row in which only the two major party presidential nominees were on the ballot, those other states always permitted and counted write-in votes. Thanks to E. Zachary Knight for the link.