In June 2012, the federal government sued Georgia for failing to comply with the federal law that protects overseas absentee voters. The case is United States v State of Georgia, northern district, 1:12cv-2230. The federal law requires election officials to mail overseas absentee ballots at least 45 days before election day. Without this law, which only pertains to federal elections, overseas voters get their ballots so late, the voted ballots arrive back in the United States too late to be counted.

States that use run-off primaries have a difficult time complying with the federal law. Georgia holds its primary in July and its run-off primary only three weeks later, in August. Georgia is also one of only two states that holds a run-off general election if no one gets 50% in November; that run-off is four weeks later, in early December. Naturally, with so many elections being held on such a compressed schedule, Georgia can’t comply with the federal law. But Georgia officials are so eager to retain their existing schedule, they are offering to count overseas ballots if they arrive back in the United States as much as 35 days after the election.

Under the state’s plan, in 2014, the primary will be July 15; the run-off primary will be August 5; the general election will be November 4; and the run-off general election will be December 2. The state says it will count overseas ballots for the run-off primary as long as they arrive back in the United States by September 9. And the state says it will count overseas ballots for the run-off general election if they arrive by December 30. The obvious problem with this plan is that if the run-off primary is quite close, no one may know who won until after the overseas ballots have been returned and counted, and that would be over a month after the run-off primary. It would also mean that in the event of a close general election run-off, the identity of the winner might not be known until January. The next step in the lawsuit will be a decision by Judge Steve C. Jones, an Obama appointee, whether to approve the state’s plan. If he rejects it, the state will either need to change its primary dates, or end primary run-offs. See this story.

Both sides in the pending federal lawsuit Arizona Legislative v Arizona Redistricting Commission have jointly filed a gentle reminder to the U.S. District Court that it has been over six months since the oral argument, and the opinion hasn’t come out yet. See this news story. The case is exceptionally interesting, because the legislature argues that Independent Redistricting Commissions for drawing U.S. House boundaries are barred by Article One of the U.S. Constitution. Article One says state legislatures are supposed to pass laws concerning congressional elections, unless Congress chooses to override such state laws. The question is whether the Constitution’s reference to “legislature” can ever refer to an independent redistricting commission.