This Nebraska newspaper story is mostly about the fact that Nebraska still lets each U.S. House district choose its own presidential elector. But the more interesting part of the story is in the second half, which discusses the odds that 2012 will see a tie in the electoral college.

Ties in the electoral college are the forgotten disaster waiting to happen. Most commentators who write about the U.S. House choosing the president forget about it. They assume that the U.S. House will only choose the President if there is a presidential candidate other than the Democratic and Republican nominees who gets electoral votes.

The electoral college had an odd number of electors until 1961, when the Constitution was amended to give 3 electoral votes to the District of Columbia. Ever since there has been an even number of electoral college members.

When the U.S. House chooses the President, each state gets one vote, regardless of its population.

On February 28, David Boren, a former Governor and U.S. Senator from Oklahoma, participated in the Americans Elect press conference in Oklahoma. The press conference was called to announce the turn-in of 90,000 signatures on the Americans Elect petition for party status. Here is Boren’s statement.

Boren was elected Governor in 1974. In 1978 he was elected to the U.S. Senate, where he remained until he resigned in 1994 to become President of the University of Oklahoma, a post he still holds. His son, Dan Boren, is the only Democratic member of Congress from Oklahoma.

On February 24, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Lovell, a Reagan appointee, enjoined two Montana campaign finance laws. The case is Lair v Murry, 6:12-cv-12. One law that was enjoined says, “Printed election material that includes information about another candidate’s voting record must include: (i) a reference to the particular vote or votes upon which the information is based; (ii) a disclosure of contrasting votes known to have been made by the candidate on the same issue if closely related in time; and (iii) a statement that to the best of the signer’s knowledge, the statements about the other candidate’s voting record are accurate and true.” The order says this law is too vague to be constitutional.

The other enjoined law says, (1) “It is unlawful for a person to misrepresent a candidate’s public voting record or any other maatter that is relevant to the issues of the campaign with knowledge that the assertion is false or with a reckless disregard of whether or not the assertion is false; (2) It is unlawful for a person to misrepresent to a candidate another candidate’s public voting record or any other matter that is relevant to the issues of the campaign with knowledge that the assertion is false or with a reckless disregard of whether or not the assertion is false.” The order says this law is also unconstitutionally vague.

The order refused to enjoin the amount of campaign contribution limits placed on individuals and political parties, and upheld the ban on corporate contributions to candidates. As to the ban on independent expenditures by corporations, the judge said that is moot now that the U.S. Supreme Court has stayed the decision of the Montana Supreme Court that upheld such independent expenditures. The lower state court had enjoined that law, so the ban is not now in effect.