New Hampshire Representative Dan McGuire and several other representatives have introduced HB 240, to let voters cast one vote for as many candidates for any particular office as they wish. This is usually called “Approval Voting.” For instance, if five candidates are running for a particular office and only one is to be elected, and a voter doesn’t particularly care who wins, but that voter is very eager that one particular candidate not be elected, the voter could vote for all four of the other candidates. Thanks to Dale Sheldon-Hess for this news.

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.