On Saturday, April 2, the Montana House passed SB 194 unanimously. It provides that parties and independent presidential campaigns must submit the names of two presidential elector candidates for each seat that the state is entitled to. Half the names would be designated presidential elector candidates, and the other names would be designated alternate presidential elector candidates. If the slate were elected, and one of the electors voted differently than expected, that elector would be deemed to have resigned and the alternate would fill the seat. Thanks to Mike Fellows for this news.

The Montana legislature still hasn’t passed the Secretary of State’s omnibus election law bill, and the legislature will only be in session for three more weeks. The omnibus bill makes no changes to ballot access, although it does have a provision saying a presidential candidate may withdraw from the general election ballot. This provision was included because the Montana Constitution Party nominated Ron Paul for President in 2008, against his will. Paul had no means to remove his name from the ballot. He polled 2.17% of the vote in November 2008 in Montana, the highest percentage that any minor party or independent presidential candidate polled in any state that year.

On April 4, the U.S. Supreme Court revealed that it had decided not to hear Nader v Nago, 10-728, the Hawaii ballot access case. Ralph Nader had filed this case in 2004, challenging Hawaii law that requires an independent presidential candidate to submit approximately six times as many signatures as are needed for a ballot-qualified political party with its own primary.

The U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t accepted a ballot access appeal brought to it by a minor party or independent candidate since 1991, when it did hear the Illinois case brought by the Harold Washington Party. It is true that the Court did hear a challenge to Georgia’s law mandating that candidates for state office be tested for illegal drugs, in 1996, but that was about candidate qualifications to hold the office, not ballot access per se.

No independent presidential petition has succeeded in Hawaii since 1992.

On April 1, the Alaska Elections Division, which is under the Lieutenant Governor, issued this 52-page report about the 2010 election for U.S. Senate. That election was historic because a write-in candidate was elected. There was a great deal of litigation over the write-ins, and also over other election law ambiguities, which prompted this report.

The Report recommends that voter intent continue to be the standard for determining if a write-in should be counted. However, the report does not specifically mention the controversy over whether a write-in is valid, if the voter who cast the write-in doesn’t know, or forgets, to “X” the box next to the name written in. The Report says that the state should continue to ask write-in candidates to file a declaration of write-in candidacy, and suggests a deadline of 21 days before the election. But the Report says the declaration should be voluntary, not mandatory.

The Report reveals that it cost the state $60,440 dollars to count the 102,334 write-in votes.