On December 28, U.S. District Court Judge Ralph Beistline issued this 14-page ruling in Miller v Treadwell, 3:10-cv-0252.  Although Joe Miller had already lost in the Alaska Supreme Court over the vote count for U.S. Senate, he had some distinct claims that had been pending in the federal case.  However, the federal court rejected those arguments.

Miller first argued that the U.S. Constitution requires that only state legislatures may create laws relating to federal elections, and that when the Alaska Division of Elections decided that misspelled write-in votes are valid, that was effectively a revision of state laws and practices, and it was invalid because only legislatures can change laws and practices.  Judge Beistline did not disagree with Miller’s statement of that argument, but the judge ruled that the Division of Elections did not change the rules.  In effect, the law has always allowed misspelled write-ins.  The judge wrote “The Alaska Supreme Court did not make a finding clearly contrary to the face of the statute…what we have before us is a poorly drafted state statute.  Wisdom would suggest that the Alaska legislature act to clarify it.”

Miller also argued in federal court that under Bush v Gore, the write-in tally was flawed because there were no clear standards, so not every voter was treated equally.  But Judge Beistline said every voter was treated equally, because all the write-ins were examined by one individual, the Director of the Elections office.  Finally, Miller argued in this case that he was not treated equally because not all of his votes were examined carefully.  But the judge said that the evidence shows that Elections Division workers did actually examine every ballot, not just the write-in ballots.  UPDATE:  the Alaska Elections Division has now certified Lisa Murkowski as the winner; see this story.

The Republican Parties in two states, Idaho and South Carolina, are currently litigating whether they are constitutionally entitled to some procedure that will prevent adherents of other political parties from voting in Republican primaries.  In Idaho, all the briefs are submitted, and Judge B. Lynn Winmill could rule at any time.  That case is Idaho Republican Party v Ysursa, in U.S. District Court, 08-cv-165.

In South Carolina, the Greenville County Republican Party’s lawsuit is not as far along.  Discovery was completed last month and the briefs will have been submitted by January 31, 2011.  That case is Greenville County Republican Party Executive Committee v State of South Carolina, 6:10-cv-1407.  The case is in front of Judge J. Michelle Childs.

Neither Idaho nor South Carolina has ever had registration by party, so under current law, any voter on primary day is free to choose any party’s primary ballot.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never settled whether political parties in open primary states are entitled to some procedure that prevents loyalists of other political parties from voting in their primaries.  However, when the Oklahoma Libertarian Party tried to win the oppposite kind of ruling, it lost in the U.S. Supreme Court.  In that case, the Libertarian Party wanted to create an open primary for itself.  It desired that any registered voter ought to be free to ask for a Libertarian Party primary ballot.  Oklahoma is a state that has registration by party.  The party won in the 10th circuit, but in 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and said it wouldn’t be fair to the major parties if the Libertarian Party could do that.  That ruling, Clingman v Beaver, has caused confusion, because until that ruling, the law seemed to be that parties were free to decide for themselves who can vote in their primaries.

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide next year whether to hear Green Party of Connecticut v Lenge, 10-795.  This the case on discriminatory public funding.  The state has asked to delay its response from January 14, 2011, to February 14, and the Court has granted the state’s request.

The Court will hear oral arguments in the other case involving public funding of candidates on March 28, 2011.  The other case is from Arizona, a state that does not discriminate against minor party and independent candidates in its public funding system.  The issue in the Arizona case is whether the system violates the Constitution by giving extra public funding to certain candidates, depending on the finances of that candidate’s privately-funded opponents.