Under current Wyoming law, a write-in candidate at the general election can request that write-in votes for him or her be tallied. The request need not be made until two days after the general election. The Wyoming Secretary of State’s omnibus election law bill this year, S20, provides that the Secretary of State can charge a fee for this service. The bill calls it an “administrative fee” and does not set the amount of the fee. It says the amount will be set by rule and regulation.

Courts in three states have already ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not permit states to charge a filing fee for declared write-in candidates. The cases are from the California Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th circuit, and a U.S. District Court in West Virginia. The only permitted rationale for filing fees is to keep ballots from being too crowded. Write-in candidates’ names are never printed on ballot, by definition, so the logic of requiring a filing fee for them doesn’t exist. States are not permitted to charge fees, for either voters or for candidates, merely for the purpose of helping pay for election administration, according to several decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. For example, in Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut, 479 U.S. 208, at page 218, the Court said, “Increases in the cost of administering the election system is not a sufficient basis here for infringing appellees’ First Amendment rights.” In Carrington v Rash, 380 U.S. 89, at 86, the Court said states may not injure voting rights “because of some remote administrative benefit to the state.”

On January 25, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a stay of the State Court of Appeals decision yesterday. This means that during the next few days, while the State Supreme Court is deciding the issue, any ballots that are printed must contain Rahm Emanuel’s name. The election is February 22. Thanks to Rick Hasen. UPDATE: the Court also said it will take the case, will not hold any oral arguments, and will decide the case by reading the briefs already filed in the State Court of Appeals. This means a decision is likely from the State Supreme Court very soon, perhaps even by the end of this week.

Last year, U.S. Senator Roland Burris of Illinois desired to run in the special election for U.S. Senate in November 2010 (for the two-month short term), but the 7th circuit ruled before the election that the only candidates who could be listed on the November 2010 ballot for that seat were candidates who were already on the ballot for the regular election for that same seat. Last year, Burris asked the U.S. Supreme Court to put him on the ballot, but the Court refused him injunctive relief. Nevertheless, Burris also asked the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a declaratory ruling. On November 3, 2010, the Court seemed to show interest in his case, and asked the other side to file response briefs.

The response briefs have now been filed. Here is the response of the Illinois Attorney General. Here is the response of the voters who filed the original lawsuit, demanding an early special election for the U.S. Senate seat. This is a 3-cornered fight, in which the voters who filed the original case, Senator Burris, and the state of Illinois, all have their own legal positions and their own ideas of what should have happened. The brief of the voters does not even address the most interesting part of this case, which is whether ballot access in one election can be made literally impossible for any candidate who isn’t running in some other election. The state’s brief does address that, at pages 21-22.