On January 27, Texas Governor Rick Perry asked to withdraw from the lawsuit Perry v Judd, 12-1067, the case in the 4th circuit over Virginia’s ban on out-of-state circulators. However, Newt Gingrich, who had intervened in the lawsuit last month, will keep the case alive.

The U.S. District Court in this case had ruled that the out-of-state circulator ban is almost certainly unconstitutional, but that Perry and the other intervening presidential candidates had filed the lawsuit too late to get injunctive relief. Perry had appealed the denial of injunctive relief, but the 4th circuit had agreed that he had filed the case too late. The 4th circuit has not yet expressed an opinion about the constitutionality of the state ban on out-of-state circulators, but will probably do so fairly soon. Briefs on that issue are all due by March 30, 2012. In the meantime, it seems likely that the legislature will repeal the ban on petitioners who live in Virginia but who circulate outside their home district, but will retain the ban on out-of-state circulators.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has recently visited Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, where she has addressed civic groups, local judges and attorneys, and other public gatherings. See this Saipan Tribune article about the trip’s conclusion. This article, and other articles about the visit, imply that she is the first U.S. Supreme Court Justice to visit these U.S. territories while in office.

The U.S. is in violation of several international human rights agreements for refusing to let U.S. adult citizens who live in its possessions vote for President, as well as for denying them any voting representatives in the national legislature. By contrast, France and the Netherlands, the only other nations with populous overseas possessions, grant full voting rights in their national elections to residents of those places (“populous” in this context means a place with at least 70,000 residents).

Sotomayor’s roots are in Puerto Rico, so it is natural that she may be more interested in this voting rights issue than any other U.S. Supreme Court Justice. The U.S. Supreme Court has been rejecting all voting rights cases filed by residents of U.S. possessions for three decades, and there have been many such appeals, especially from Puerto Rico. Maybe that will change in the future. Thanks to How Appealing for the link. UPDATE: a Virgin Islands resident filed a constitutional complaint against the U.S. government on September 20, 2011, Michael Charles v U.S. Federal Election Commission, superior court of Virgin Islands, St. Thomas division, 505/2011. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the news of the Virgin Islands case.

On January 27, the New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments in In re: Contest of November 8, 2011 Election, no. 58-11. The issue is whether Gabriela Mosquera, the Democratic nominee in the 4th district, should be seated in the Assembly. She was elected to the Assembly last year, and afterwards her opponent challenged her qualifications. Mosquera admits she has not lived in the district for a full year before the election. Ironically, she has now lived in the district for a full year, so if the Court rules that the election should be annulled, but if it also rules that the Democratic Party may name a replacement, the Democratic Party intends to choose her for the vacancy.

New Jersey does not hold special elections for legislative vacancies. The party that won the last election for a particular seat is entitled to choose a replacement. See this story about the hearing, which seems to indicate that there are some Justices who feel strongly one way, and other Justices who feel strongly the other way, and some Justices who didn’t give a clue as to their thoughts.

As an aside which has nothing to do with the controversy, Mosquera is a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in Ecuador.