The text of Pennsylvania SB 1282, which provides that each U.S. House district should elect its own presidential elector, is now available here. The bill is badly worded. It implies that nominees of qualified parties for presidential elector must live in the district they seek to represent, but the bill makes no mention of independent presidential candidates, or the nominees of unqualified parties. If the bill passes as written, it will be subject to litigation because it is so unclear.

Current law says that the presidential nominees of qualified parties choose candidates for presidential elector. This already-existing provision is unique to Pennsylvania; no other state tells the presidential nominees themselves that they must choose their candidates for presidential elector. In other states, the state parties choose the candidates for presidential elector.

The bill, on page two, says the presidential nominees of qualified parties “shall designate one nominee from each congressional district.” This suggests that the nominee must live in that district, but does not make this clear.

According to CNN, the South Carolina Republican Party will announce on October 3 that its presidential primary will be January 21. See here. The only state that has not yet set its presidential primary date is New Hampshire; however, the Nevada and Iowa caucus dates are also still not determined.

On October 3, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a case filed by Dallas County, Texas, over the Voting Rights Act and electronic vote-counting machines. The case had been before the U.S. Supreme Court since last year. Today the U.S. Supreme Court says the case is moot. It is Dallas County, Texas v Texas Democratic Party, 10-755. The lower court had ruled that the county must ask the U.S. Justice Department to pre-clear a change in how certain machines count votes. The county had then sought and obtained pre-clearance.

There was a second part of this case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court in this same case, no. 10-1183, concerning attorneys fees. The Supreme Court remanded that minor part of the case back to the lower court so it could be re-done.

Also on October 3, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Alan Keyes’ lawsuit against California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, over whether Bowen should have investigated Barack Obama’s qualifications before she listed him on California ballots in 2008. That case is Keyes v Bowen, 10-1351. The case, which had come up from the California state courts, had received a significant decision from the State Court of Appeals. The State Court of Appeals had ruled that the Secretary of State has no authority to reject the presidential nominee of any ballot-qualified party, whether the candidate meets the constitutional qualifications or not. That decision will now stand.

Also on October 3, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the Massachusetts Libertarian case over presidential substitution. The party had been hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court would leave the party’s case open, until the State Supreme Court rules on what the law actually provides. It is possible the State Supreme Court will construe the law to mean that presidential stand-ins are permitted.