On December 23, the hearing officer released his opinion on whether Rahm Emanuel should be on the February 2011 ballot for Mayor of Chicago.  He ruled in favor of Rahm, whose petitions had been challenged on the basis that he had not resided in Chicago during the past year.  See this story.  The Chicago Board of Elections is expected to approve the hearing officer’s recommendation.  At that point, objectors to Emanuel’s ballot position will then file a lawsuit.  Thanks to Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire for the link.  UPDATE:  the Chicago Board of Elections accepted the hearing officer’s conclusion; see this story.

On December 21, a U.S. District Court in New Mexico ruled that welfare offices in that state have not been following the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.  The 23-page decision is Vladez v Herrera, 09-668 JCH.  The national law requires welfare agencies to distribute blank voter registration cards to everyone who does business with the agencies, unless the person says in writing that he or she doesn’t want a form.  But in New Mexico, the welfare forms ask the person filling out the form if he or she wants a blank voter registration card.  The New Mexico form also says if people fail to answer that question, they will not be given a form.

On December 22, the Alaska Supreme Court issued a unanimous 24-page opinion, agreeing with the lower court, in Miller v Treadwell, S-14112.  This is the case in which Joe Miller, Republican nominee for U.S. Senator from Alaska, had argued that many write-in votes for Lisa Murkowski should not be counted.  The lower court had interpreted the law not to require perfect spelling.  But the lower court had also ruled that write-in votes are invalid when the voter forgets, or doesn’t know, to fill in the oval next to the name written in.  The Alaska Supreme Court agreed with the lower court on both those points, and on all the other points.  Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

The decision is heavy on good rhetoric about respecting the intent of each voter.  The part of the decision that disallows write-ins when the voter didn’t fill in the oval is inconsistent with that rhetoric, but the Court didn’t seem to recognize the contradiction.