On August 8, a 3-judge U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., upheld the federal laws that make it illegal for aliens who are not admitted for permanent residency from spending money advocating the election or defeat of candidates for federal office, or for donating money to political parties. The 18-page decision is here. The case is Bluman v FEC, 10-1766.

The decision says, “It is fundamental to the definition of our national political community that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self-government.” The decision also notes that the two plaintiffs are citizens of countries that would not permit a U.S. citizen who lived in those countries (Canada and Israel) to spend money to influence candidate elections in those countries. Finally, the decision notes that neither plaintiff is willing to say that he wants to become a resident alien.

The decision did not decide what would happen if Congress should also make it illegal for permanent-residency aliens to spend money to influence U.S. federal elections. But the decision notes that permanent-residency aliens may serve in the U.S. armed forces, whereas non-permanent aliens may not. The decision has an interesting discussion of which constitutional rights apply to non-resident aliens, and which parts don’t. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

National Popular Vote Plan supporters recently completed collecting signatures on an initiative, that would ask South Dakota voters if they wish to pass the plan. Assuming the initiative has enough valid signatures, it will be on the ballot in November 2012. South Dakota is the first state in which backers of the plan have used the initiative process. UPDATE: the signatures have not yet been collected, but the paperwork has been submitted to enable the drive to begin.

On August 5, Julius Galacki asked the 9th circuit to let him intervene in the lawsuit called Chamness v Bowen, which challenges two particular aspects of California’s top-two system. Galacki tried to file as a declared write-in candidate in last month’s run-off election for Congress in California’s 36th district, but his write-in declaration was rejected because California election law says that write-ins can’t be counted in the second round of Congressional elections.

The U.S. District Court then refused to let Galacki intervene, even though if he were allowed to intervene, he would be the only person in that lawsuit who has run, or attempted to run, for Congress as a write-in candidate. He is also the only person associated with the case who has declared an intent to run in 2012. Here is Galacki’s filing. Here is a very short procedural filing that was filed a few hours later.