On November 1, the U.S. Department of Justice, Voting Rights Section, pre-cleared the rules for write-in candidates set forth last week by the Alaska Supreme Court.  Alaska is one of the states in which changes to election laws and procedures must be approved by the Voting Rights Section.  Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.

Earlier on November 1, five voters had filed a federal lawsuit against the Alaska Elections Division, complaining that the latest version of the Alaska Supreme Court rules for write-ins had not been pre-cleared.  That case was Rudolph v Fenumiai, 3:10-cv-00243.  But the lawsuit is now moot.

Last week the Alaska Supreme Court had said that elections officials may show the list of declared write-in candidates to any voter who asks to see it.

On November 1, the Arkansas Supreme Court issued a one-sentence order in Fite v Kilgore, 10-1112.  This is the case over the eligibility of the Republican nominee for state house, 83rd district, Tommy Fite.  The Supreme Court order says, “Petition and amended petition for writ of prohibition are denied without prejudice.”  This appears to mean that if Hite wins the election, the Arkansas Supreme Court will then decide if he is eligible to take office.  His name is on the ballot, but a notice will be posted in the polling places saying that votes for him will not be counted.  The only other candidate on the ballot is the Democratic nominee.  The seat is currently held by a Republican who is not running for re-election.

A lower state court said Fite is not eligible to be a state legislator because in 1984 he plea-bargained to a misdemeanor charge.

The Libertarian Party of Los Angeles County filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court on April 2, 2010, against a law that prohibit circulators for in-lieu of filing fee petitions from working outside their home county and also prohibits them from working outside their home district.  A hearing was to have been held on that case on November 1.  However, on October 29, the judge canceled the hearing and will decide the case on the briefs.  The state has filed a motion, asking that the case be dismissed on the grounds that the law does not injure any of the plaintiffs.

California does not enforce the laws on the residency of in lieu petition circulators.  However, Arizona made the same defense in a similar case filed by the Green Party in 2009, but the judge still ruled in favor of the Green Party.  When a law prohibits someone from circulating a petition, that chills petitioning, even if the state says it doesn’t enforce the law.