On June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of Arizona’s program for public funding of candidates. Here is the opinion, which is called Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v Bennett, 10-238. The majority opinion, by Chief Justice John Roberts, is 30 pages. The dissent, by Justice Elena Kagan and signed by the Court’s other three liberals, is 32 pages.

The part of the law struck down provides for extra public funding, for publicly-funded candidates who have privately-financed opponents. The extra public funding kicks in if the privately-financed opponent spends a great deal more money than the amount of money given by the government to the publicly-financed candidate. The extra public funding also is triggered if there is a great deal of independent expenditure made on behalf of the privately-funded candidate.

The majority decision gives little clue as to what the five-member majority thinks about public funding laws that discriminate against independent candidates and the nominees of new parties. Arizona does not discriminate for or against any candidate on the basis of party affiliation or lack of it, so that issue did not arise in the Arizona case. That issue is before the court in the Green Party case from Connecticut. The Arizona dissent does make a brief reference to the independent candidate/minor party issue, however. Page two of Justice Kagan’s dissent sets forth two hypothetical states, both of which have public funding. In her hypothetical, the first state doesn’t have the extra public funding for certain candidates that Arizona’s law has provided. In her second hypothetical state, that state does have Arizona-style extra public funding. But in Kagan’s hypothetical scenario, that second state (which she clearly approves of) “does not discriminate against any candidate or point of view.” This sentence at least tells us that Justice Kagan is aware of the problem that certain states (e.g., Connecticut) do discriminate on the basis of partisan affiliation or lack of it.

The big news will come when the Court says whether it will hear the Connecticut case. That news will probably come Tuesday, June 28. The Connecticut case has been pending before the Court since March. The Court has understandably not said whether it will hear the case, while the Arizona decision was pending. But now we can expect the decision on whether the Court will hear the Connecticut case tomorrow. It was on Conference today, June 27.

The story of the New York State Senate vote on same-sex marriage on the evening of June 24 has been well-reported. Many news stories, including this one, mention that the Conservative Party of New York says it will not cross-endorse any Republican State Senator who voted in favor of the bill.

Two of the four Republican State Senators who voted in favor of the bill are in close districts, and in 2010 they needed the Conservative Party vote. In the 55th district in Rochester, James Alesi’s margin over his Democratic opponent was 6,862 votes, and Alesi enjoyed the support of the Conservative and Independence Parties. He received 7,970 votes on the Conservative line and 3,914 on the Independence line.

In the 60th district near Buffalo, Mark Grisanti’s margin over his Democratic opponent was 519 votes. Grisanti received 4,368 votes on the Conservative line. The Independence Party did not contest this district.

Of course, in 2012, the district boundaries will have been redrawn, so what happened in 2010 doesn’t necessarily mean a great deal for the next election.

On June 15, a New York Supreme Court Judge in Albany dismissed the lawsuit Redlich v New York State Board of Canvassers, 1623-11, on procedural grounds. This is the lawsuit in which the Libertarian Party argued that its gubernatorial nominee in 2010, Warren Redlich, might very well have received 50,000 votes if the Libertarian Party had not been squeezed into a party column with another party. The lawsuit also argued that not all absentee votes had been counted and if they had been, the party might have been credited with at least 50,000 votes. If the party had received 50,000 votes, it would now be a qualified party. Instead it was credited with 48,386 votes.

The case was dismissed on the grounds that it should have been filed within 30 days of the official canvass of votes.

The New York Libertarian Party has another election lawsuit pending in federal court, on a different issue. That case, Credico v New York State Board of Elections, challenges the state law that says if a candidate is nominated by two unqualified parties, he or she can only be listed once on the ballot. By contrast, if a candidate is nominated by a qualified party and an unqualified party, or by two qualified parties, he or she is listed twice. That case is undergoing discovery.

Another similar case, Conservative Party of New York v New York State Board of Elections, is also pending in federal court. That case challenges the state policy on how to count votes when a voter casts two votes in a single race, for the same person but on two different party lines. The state gives the vote to the party that is higher on the ballot than the other party.