On May 22, the European Court of Human Rights issued a new opinion on whether Great Britain is in violation of that Court’s 2005 ruling which said adult citizens who are in prison must be allowed to vote. See this story. The new ruling acknowledges that European nations who have agreed to obey the court’s rulings do have wide discretion on how to implement that court’s rulings. Nevertheless, it appears the Court will not back down on its earlier basic ruling. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.

On May 22, the Michigan House Local Government and Urban Policy Committee passed some election law bills, but angry protestors in the room made it necessary for marshalls to escort some members of the Committee out of the hearing room. See this story. The bills require government photo-ID to vote absentee, and place restrictions on groups that wish to register voters, and make it more difficult in some circumstances for local governments to retain control over their spending and budgetary authority. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.

On May 16, U.S. District Court Judge Louise W. Flanagan struck down North Carolina’s provision for extra public funding for judicial candidates who have privately-funded opponents who raise a great deal of campaign contributions, or who are the beneficiaries of large independent expenditures on their behalf. The case is North Carolina Right to Life PAC v Leake, 5:11-cv-472, eastern district.

The decision was no surprise, because the U.S. Supreme Court already ruled last year in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v Bennett, that this type of public funding is unconstitutional. The only real issue in the recent North Carolina case is whether the state could defend itself by saying it no longer pays this kind of extra public funding. The state said, since it won’t make such payments, the case is moot. But the judge said the case is not moot just because the government promises not to follow the program. The opinion says, “Dismissal on mootness grounds is inappropriate if the defendant voluntarily ceases the allegedly improper behavior but is free to return to it at any time.” Thanks to the Center for Competitive Elections for this news.