Rhode Island State House member Daniel P. Gordon, Jr., elected as a Republican to his first term in November 2010, was expelled by the Republican House caucus earlier this month after he was arrested for not having appeared some time earlier in a Massachusetts court. See this story about his legal troubles. On September 21, he became a dues-paying member of the Libertarian Party. It is not clear if he has changed his voter registration from “Republican” to “Libertarian.” If he does so, the state will consider him a registered independent, because the Libertarian Party has never been a qualified party in Rhode Island. However, the voter registration form includes a blank line for “political party” so he is free to write in “Libertarian” on the card.

Gordon supported Ron Paul for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, and says he has long been a libertarian by philosophy. His election to the Rhode House in November 2010 was extremely close; the vote was 2,707 for Gordon and 2,660 for his Democratic opponent. He represents the 71st district, centered on Portsmouth. Thanks to Eric Dondero and Austin Cassidy for this news.

On September 21, California filed this brief with the 9th circuit, in Libertarian Party of Los Angeles County v Bowen, 11-55316. The issue is the state law that says circulators for candidate petitions (for district office, such as U.S. House or state legislature) must live in the relevant district. The state concedes that the residency requirement for circulators is unconstitutional. But it says the lawsuit should be dismissed because the Secretary of State doesn’t enforce it. The petition form requires circulators to sign a statement at the bottom of the form “under penalty of perjury” that they do live in the district.

To establish that the Secretary of State doesn’t enforce the residency requirement for circulators, the state also asks the Court to take judicial notice of a 1980 ruling from a past Secretary of State, which says that signatures on a petition should count, even if the circulator isn’t a registered voter. But the 1980 ruling also says, “A circulator who completes a false affidavit is subject to criminal prosecution for perjury or, where applicable, violating Elections Code 29780, and suspected violators should be reported by local elections officials to the proper authorities.” Here is the state’s request that the court take judicial notice of the 1980 ruling, which includes a link to that 1980 ruling. It also includes a link to a January 2010 statement by the current Secretary of State that she still adheres to the 1980 ruling.

On September 21, U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates, a Bush Jr. appointee, upheld the parts of the federal Voting Rights Act that require certain states to pre-clear election law changes with the Voting Rights Section of the U.S. Justice Department. The case is Shelby County, Alabama v Holder, D.C., 1:10cv-651. Here is the decision.

The Alabama case is one of several constitutional challenges to this part of the Voting Rights Act. A few months ago, another U.S. District Court had in Washington, D.C., had also upheld this part of the act, in a case filed by some North Carolina voters. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news and for the link to the decision, which is 151 pages long. UPDATE: a third case challenging the pre-clearance parts of the Voting Rights Act, State of Arizona v Holder, happens to be before Judge Bates, so that increases the odds that the Arizona challenge will also lose. See this story.