On April 14, the Massachusetts Libertarian Party filed this brief in the First Circuit, in Barr v Galvin, 09-2426. The issue is whether the Massachusetts Libertarian Party should have been permitted to use a stand-in presidential candidate on its 2008 ballot access petition. The U.S. District Court had ruled in 2008 that Massachusetts must let the party use a stand-in.

The state is unhappy with that decision, and it is trying to get it reversed. Of course, since the 2008 election is over, the only impact from the upcoming First Circuit decision will be on future elections.

Barr v Galvin is the first case on using stand-ins on petitions to reach any U.S. Court of Appeals. In the past, when various states have lost on this issue, they have not cared about the issue enough to appeal. States that have barred stand-ins, and been told by courts that they must permit them, besides Massachusetts, are Florida (twice) and Virginia.

According to this article in The Hill, President Obama endorsed HR 157 on April 16. This is the bill to expand the size of the U.S. House, with a new seat for Utah and a seat for the District of Columbia. But the article also says that Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah will not only oppose it, but that he will organize a filibuster against it. Hatch supports the concept but he is unhappy that the bill provdes that Utah’s new seat should temporarily be elected statewide, instead of requiring that Utah immediately draw up four districts. Thanks to Rick Hasen’s ElectionLawBlog for this news.

On April 16, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg issued this 19-page order, denying a request that San Francisco be prohibited from using its version of Instant Runoff Voting in this year’s city elections. The case is Dudum v City and County of San Francisco, C10-504.

The plaintiffs had criticized San Francisco for letting voters choose only a first choice, a second choice, and a third choice. San Francisco limits voters to just three choices due to limitations imposed by technology. Plaintiffs had argued that limiting the voter to only three choices violates voting rights. Plaintiffs were represented by the Nielsen Merksamer law firm, the same law firm that represents the campaign to pass California’s Proposition 14, the “top-two” ballot measure on the ballot on June 8, 2010.

Judge Seeborg is an Obama appointee. He is the first federal judge appointed by President Obama to have issued an opinion in any lawsuit covered by this blog.