On February 8, U.S. District Court Judge R. Barclay Surrick, a Clinton appointee, ruled that Pennsylvania should use the legislative districts based on the 2000 census in 2012. The 2012 redistricting plan for the legislature had been struck down last month by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had said for 2012, the old districts should be in force.

Then, a federal lawsuit was filed to invalidate using the old districts, on grounds that the populations of the districts are no longer equal in population. But, the federal judge said because the primary is in April, there is nothing practical to do except use the old districts. The case is Pileggi v Aichele, eastern district, cv-12-0588.

The ruling says postponing the primary is not realistic because there is also a presidential primary set for April. His decision doesn’t mention the idea of having two primaries, one for president and one for legislative candidates. However, eighteen states have different primary dates for president than for other office: Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

On February 8, U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson ruled that Virginia’s in-district residency requirement for petitioners is unconstitutional. He also issued an injunction against enforcing the requirement in future elections. The case is Lux v Judd, e.d., civ 3:10-cv-482. The case had been filed in 2010. Here is the 18-page opinion.

This is the first Virginia ballot access law to be held unconstitutional since 2001, when the Libertarian Party sued Virginia over a law that said the names of qualified parties should be printed on the November ballot next to the names of their nominees, but the party labels of unqualified parties could not be printed on the November ballot, except for President.

The Lux case is the first ballot access case handled by the James Bopp law firm of Indiana. That firm is extremely active in election law, but its other cases have dealt with campaign finance, and also privacy for petition signers.

The decision says in footnote 8 that no opinion is being expressed about the constitutionality of Virginia’s ban on out-of-state circulators.

On February 8, a U.S. District Court in Cincinnati issued a 93-page opinion in Hunter v Hamilton County Board of Elections, 1:10-cv-820, a case over whether certain provisional ballots should have been counted in Hamilton County in the November 2010 election. The court ruled that some of the provisional ballots should be counted. The election between the Republican and Democratic candidates for Juvenile Court Judge had been so close, there is some probability that the uncounted provisional ballots will determine who won.

Ohio law says that provision ballots cast in the wrong precinct should not be counted. However, Hamilton County elections officials nevertheless counted some provisional ballots that had been cast in the wrong precinct, but wouldn’t count certain other provisional ballots that had been cast in the wrong precinct. The votes had issue had been cast at locations in which several precincts were voting in the same building. Polling place officials had misinformed the voters about where to deposit their ballots. The decision says for procedural reasons, the court is unable to rule on the constitutionality of the law that says provisional ballots must be cast in the proper precinct. But, relying on Equal Protection, the court orders the votes to be counted. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.