The U.S. Supreme Court conference of Friday, January 14, will consider whether to hear Coffield v Kemp, 10-596.  This is the case that challenges Georgia’s rules for non-Democratic, non-Republican candidates to get on the ballot for U.S. House of Representatives in regularly-scheduled elections.  They are so restrictive, they have not been used since 1964.  Back in 1964, the petition deadline was in October, no notarization of signatures was required, and the petitions were not checked for validity.  Since the current rules have existed, as revised in 1964, they have never been used for U.S. House candidates.

Every other state has had minor party or independent candidates on the ballot for U.S. House during the last decade.

The Michigan Supreme Court held a conference on December 21.  Among other cases, the Court considered whether to take the Socialist Party’s ballot access case.  The Court has not yet said whether it will hear the case.  It challenges the aspect of Michigan election law that requires newly-qualifying parties to show twice as much support as previously qualified parties.  The number of signatures to get a party on the ballot is approximately twice as high as the vote test for an old party to remain on.  The case is Socialist Party of Michigan v Land, 142163.

On December 20, a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., issued an opinion explaining the basis for its order last week in LaRoque v Holder.  This is the case brought by some voters in Kinston, North Carolina, who supported a winning city ballot measure in 2008 that converted city elections from partisan elections to non-partisan elections.  The U.S. Justice Department had then objected to switching to non-partisan elections.  The voters then sued the Attorney General.  Last week the court ruled against the voters, and for the U.S. Justice Department, but did not issue an explanation.  Now, the court has released its explanation.

The court says the plaintiff voters don’t have standing because they are not truly injured by the Justice Department’s action.  The decision implies that if the city of Kinston had filed the lawsuit, then the lawsuit could have proceeded.  Thanks to Rick Hasen’s ElectionLawBlog for the link.