On December 10, the Montana Supreme Court ordered both sides in MEA-MFT v State of Montana, OP 13-789, to file briefs by January 9, 2014. This is the lawsuit on whether the top-two election measure should remain on the November 2014 ballot.

The groups that filed the lawsuit, which argues that the measure is invalid, are the MEA-MFT (a union), the Montana AFL-CIO, the Montana Public Employees Association, the Montana Human Rights Network, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs is John Morrison, who was Montana’s elected State Auditor 2000-2004.

The lawsuit argues that the top-two measure is invalid because: (1) an election law says the title of a ballot measure can’t be longer than 100 words, but this measure’s title is 196 words; (2) that the measure improperly includes two measures, one which converts separate primary ballots into a single primary ballot, and the other that says only the top two vote-getters may appear on the November ballot.

In rebuttal, so far, the state argues that the measure has more than 100 words in its title only if code sections that are being amended are counted as words, and the state says code sections should not be counted as words. Also the state says both parts of the ballot measure are related to each other. These arguments will be fleshed out in the briefs that will be filed in January.

According to this article, U.S. Senator Rand Paul, whose term expires in 2016, will try to change a Kentucky law that says a candidate cannot appear on the ballot as a candidate for more than one office.

The article says that some of Paul’s allies believe that the Kentucky law is unconstitutional, and they base this on the 1995 U.S. Supreme Court decision U.S. Term Limits v Thornton, which struck down state laws that imposed term limits in congressional elections. However, courts have generally upheld “resign to run” laws, even when the plaintiff who challenged such laws wanted to run for federal office. Courts have ruled that if someone is unwilling to give up his or her old office in the middle of the term, in order to run for Congress, Article One is irrelevant. They say that it is the candidate’s own decision whether or not to run for Congress (and sacrifice the elected position already held). The state law is not prohibiting someone from running for Congress.

By analogy, then, if Paul challenged Kentucky’s law against running for two offices simultaneously, the courts would probably say that he is free to run for re-election to the Senate, so Article One has no bearing. The Kentucky primary is in May, and candidates file for a place on the primary ballot in January. Paul could file for the U.S. Senate and skip running in Kentucky’s presidential primary, and yet run in presidential primaries in other states.

The identity of the winner in a local election in Riverhead, New York, will be determined by a state court. A write-in candidate came close to winning, and whether he is ultimately declared the winner depends on whether write-in votes cast for him in the wrong space on the ballot should be counted. See this story.