On August 31, officials of the Nebraska Libertarian Party sent letters to certain state legislators, and state election officials, suggesting that the election law be modified to make it easier for ballot-qualified parties to remain on the ballot. Specifically, the letter asks for a change in the law to provide that when a party meets the vote test to remain on the ballot, that the effect lasts four years instead of just two years.

Nebraska requires a party to poll 5% of the vote for any statewide office, every election. It is fairly easy for a minor party to poll 5% of the vote in a midterm year, when Nebraska elects five statewide state offices. But it is rare for a minor party to be able to survive in a presidential election year, when the only statewide offices up are President, and, two-thirds of the time, U.S. Senate. As a result, parties must do another petition, and elections officials must check another petition. Both parties and elections officials are put to extra expense by this policy. Thanks to Randy Eshelman for this news.

On August 31, the Arizona Supreme Court agreed to hear the case over the validity of petitions to recall State Senate President Russell Pearce. See this story. The lower court had agreed that the petition is valid. If the State Supreme Court agrees with the lower court, Arizona will then hold its first recall for a state legislator. Senator Pearce does not contest the point that the recall petition was signed by a sufficient number of registered voters, but his lawsuit focuses on technical deficiencies concerning the petition.

The Arizona Supreme Court still hasn’t decided whether to hear another election law case, the one over whether the state has the authority to tell Tucson that the city must use non-partisan elections. In the State Supreme Court, that case is State of Arizona v City of Tucson, cv11-0150-pr.

Robert Robb, columnist for the Arizona Republic, the daily newspaper of Phoenix, writes here that Arizona has a good chance of winning its recently filed lawsuit against part of the federal Voting Rights Act. The case, filed last week, is State of Arizona v Holder, U.S. District Court, Washington D.C., 11-1559. It has been assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee. It argues that the pre-clearance parts of the Act are unconstitutional. The law has been upheld many times in the past, but past precedents may no longer control, as the column explains.