On June 21, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly voted to add an amendment to the farm bill. The amendment would eliminate taxpayer funds to subsidize the expenses of holding political party national conventions (except that funding would still be provided for law enforcement and security), starting in 2016. See this story. It will be interesting to see if the U.S. House concurs. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

The program for public money for national presidential nominating conventions has been in place starting in 1976. The only political party other than the Democratic and Republican Parties that ever received federal funding for its presidential convention was the Reform Party, in 2000.

On June 8, two Republican nominees for presidential elector from Nevada filed a federal lawsuit, asking that “None of the Above” be removed from the November 2012 ballot and future years. The case is Townley v State of Nevada, 3:12-cv-00310. Here is the 16-page complaint. Besides the elector candidates, the complaint lists nine voter plaintiffs.

Starting in 1976, Nevada has printed “none of the above” on primary and general election ballots, but only for statewide office. The lawsuit argues that because a vote for “None of the above” has no legal effect, the voters who vote for “None of the above” are being harmed, because their vote has no effect. The complaint says if a victory by “None of the above” had any legal consequences, then it would be constitutional. The complaint suggests that the law could theoretically provide that if “None of the above” wins, then the office should be vacant. It says that also, theoretically, the law could provide for a run-off when “None of the above” gets the most votes. But since the law in reality doesn’t do either of those things, the Complaint says voters who vote for “None of the above” are being discriminated against.

One must assume that because two of the state’s Republican Party electors are co-plaintiffs, this lawsuit has the informal backing of the Republican Party of Nevada.

Usually a case is assigned randomly to a judge shortly after it is filed. This case still doesn’t seem to have been assigned to a judge. First the case had been assigned to Judge Edward Reed, a semi-retired Carter appointee. He refused the case, which semi-retired judges are free to do. Then the case was assigned by the Chief Judge to Judge Larry R. Hicks, a Bush Jr. appointee. But the docket says the order transferring the case to Judge Hicks was erroneous, and the case went back to the Chief Judge. As of the morning of June 21, the Chief Judge hasn’t re-assigned it.