Ralph Nader’s litigation on various election law issues from the 2004 election are still moving along in various courts.

Nader’s lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission, over the FEC’s refusal to even ask various state Democratic Parties and various law firms to respond to his complaint will be argued on January 14, 2013, in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. The Democratic Party spent millions of dollars in 2004 in a national effort to keep him off the ballot in as many states as possible in 2004, yet the party never reported these expenditures to the FEC. After years of stalling, the FEC dismissed Nader’s complaint, so in 2010 he sued the FEC for its failure to act. He lost in the U.S. District Court, where the judge said the FEC did not strictly follow the law but that the FEC behavior was “harmless” error. The appeal will be in front of Karen Henderson and A. Raymond Randolph (Bush Sr. appointees) and Thomas Griffith (a Bush Jr. appointee). The case is Nader v FEC.

Nader’s lawsuit against the Democratic Party, and the Maine Democratic Party, for its behavior in 2004 was set for a trial, but on October 11 the Democratic Party asked the Maine Supreme Court to stay the trial. The State Supreme Court is not likely to keep the stay intact for much longer, because that court already ruled unanimously on April 19, 2012 that the trial should go ahead.

Nader’s lawsuit to preserve his funds in his Washington, D.C. bank from being attached by Democrats who challenged his Pennsylvania petition is still pending. Although he lost last year, he asked for a rehearing, which is still pending. That case is Serody v Nader and Amalgamated Bank, in the D.C. court system’s Court of Appeals.

The Atlantic has a dramatic account of the hearing in U.S. District Court on November 7, on whether certain Ohio provisional ballots should be counted. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this fascinating link.

The Arizona Secretary of State’s web page has campaign finance reports for committees that either supported, or opposed, Proposition 121, this year’s top-two initiative. Donations and spending that occurred up until October 25, 2012 are now known. Donations and spending for the period later than October 25 will not be known until December 6, 2012.

The only committee that raised and spent money to defeat the initiative, Save Our Vote, raised $458,851 and spent $380,985, in the period July through October 25.

Two committees raised money in support of the initiative. The Open Government committee raised $1,330,582 prior to October 26, 2012, and Arizonans for a Top Two Primary raised $12,958. One of the biggest individual donors to the Open Government Committee is Rob Walton, chair of Walmart. On September 19, 2012, he contributed $50,000 to the campaign in favor of the top-two primary.

Proponents of the initiative, of course, spent a great deal of their money on paying petition circulators, and the campaign finance reports don’t make it possible to know how much the supporters spent on petitioning, versus how much they spent on advertising. Proponents spent most of their advertising budget on television. Proponents also arranged for robocalls to registered Republicans, saying that Republicans support Prop. 121; see here for more about that.

Opponents of the initiative had television ads, but seem to have relied more on direct postal mail. Opponents appeared at a panel discussion on October 14. Here is a link to the hour-long event, which included these five panelists: Luis Heredia, executive director of the Arizona Democratic Party; Barry Hess, spokesperson for the Arizona Libertarian Party; Mike Liburdi, a Republican and the attorney who challenged the placement of Prop. 121 on the ballot; Christina Tobin of Free & Equal; and Angel Torres, co-chair of the Arizona Green Party. Barbara Klein, president of the state League of Women Voters, moderated. The comments of Heredia are especially interesting; to hear him, go to the 15 minute mark and also the 31 minute mark.

Proponents are charging that the initiative lost overwhelmingly because of large contributions against the initiative from Americans for Responsible Leadership, which has ties to Charles and David Koch. That contribution came in after many Arizona had already voted.