Fred Karger Fights to Gain Admittance to South Carolina Republican Presidential Debate

Fred Karger, a Republican candidate for President, has been excluded from the South Carolina Republican Party’s upcoming presidential debate, even though he is willing to pay the $25,000 and even though he has filed as a candidate with the Federal Election Commission. Apparently the party has refused to permit him into the debate because of the rule that all candidates must be at 1% in a poll. However, Karger has submitted evidence of polls in which he does have at least 1%. See this story.

Ninth Circuit Will Rehear Case on Whether Arizona can Require Proof of Citizenship when Voters Register

On April 27, the 9th circuit agree to a rehearing en banc in Gonzalez v State of Arizona, 08-17094. This is the case in which the original panel in the 9th circuit had ruled 2-1 that the federal government’s “Motor Voter Law” precludes states from requiring voters to attach proof of citizenship when they register to vote. The federal law required states to recognize postcard registration forms, unless that state has election-day registration. Arizona’s law, requiring naturalized citizens to attach a copy of their naturalization certificate, seems by many to defeat the purpose of the postcard registration forms, which is to make it easy to register to vote.

The original 9th circuit panel include retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Sometimes retired U.S. Supreme Court justices sit in panels of lower courts. Thanks to Howard Bashman’s How Appealing blog for this news.

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Nevada Commission on Ethics v Carrigan

On April 27, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Nevada Commission on Ethics v Carrigan, 10-568. Here is a summary of that argument by Lyle Denniston of Scotusblog. The case explores whether the First Amendment free speech provision has any protection for government officials when they vote on official business. The case arose in Sparks, when a city councilmember voted in favor of a casino project. He was then censured by the Ethics Commission, because a friend of his, who had once been his campaign manager, was involved with that casino. The Nevada Supreme Court then said the Ethics Commission’s action violated the councilmember’s free speech.

UPDATE: here is the 67-page transcript.