On May 20, the Ninth Circuit upheld San Francisco’s particular type of Instant Runoff Voting. The case is Dudum v Arntz, 10-17198. The opinion is 33 pages. The plaintiffs, San Francisco voters, had filed this lawsuit in 2010. The lawsuit did not challenge the constitutionality of Instant Runoff Voting in general. Rather, it challenged San Francisco’s version, which limits each voter to ranking only three candidates. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

The attorneys for the voters who challenged the San Francisco system are the same attorneys who represent former California Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado in the lawsuits that challenge certain aspects of California’s top-two system. Maldonado intervened in those lawsuits, Field v Bowen and Chamness v Bowen, to defend the parts of California’s top-two system that do not treat all candidates equally relative to party labels, and which permit write-in space on run-off ballots but do not allow those write-ins to be counted. It is somewhat ironic that the same attorneys who attacked San Francisco’s version of IRV on the grounds that it fails to “count” the votes of all voters, are defending the top-two law that specifically says some votes can not be counted.

New Mexico and Wisconsin are both somewhat likely to abandon straight-ticket devices starting in 2012. In New Mexico, it is reported that the new Secretary of State, Dianna Duran, will eliminate the device. New Mexico election law does not authorize it, but past Secretaries of State have imposed it anyway. In the past all parties had a straight-ticket device, but the preceding Secretary of State, Mary Herrera, had eliminated it for minor parties, while keeping it for major parties.

In Wisconsin, the omnibus election law bill has passed the legislature, and it abolishes the straight-ticket device. The bill, AB 7, passed the Assembly on May 11, and the Senate on May 17. The bill contains many provisions that make it more difficult for certain individuals to vote, by requiring government photo-ID, and therefore Democrats have vigorously opposed it. However, Republicans are in a majority in both houses of the legislature, and the Governor is a Republican, so the bill will probably be signed into law.

On May 19, a Nevada state court ruled that political parties may choose nominees in the upcoming special U.S. House election. The case is Nevada Republican Party v State of Nevada, 11oc-00147, in First Judicial District Court, Carson City. See this story. The judge is permitting parties until June 30 to choose a nominee. There will be no primaries, so these nominees will be chosen in party meetings.

The ballot-qualified parties are Democratic, Republican, Independent American, and Libertarian. Any independent candidate, or any nominee of an unqualified party, may also run with 250 signatures.