As noted earlier, a lawsuit is pending in a lower state court in Iowa, over the problem that the State Constitution says judicial retention elections must be held on separate ballots than the ballot for other offices.  The state ignored this constitutional requirement in November 2010, and put the judicial retention question on the ballot used to elect people to federal office, state office, and county office.  At that election, the voters voted to remove three members of the State Supreme Court.  They faced political opposition because they had been part of the unanimous decision last year that said the Iowa Constitution requires the state to permit same-sex marriage.

The Des Moines Register has this interesting article about the dilemma the lower court judge faces.  If he upholds the challenge to the election, there is some likelihood that the voters will feel disenfranchised.  On the other hand, if he says the vote was valid even though it was not held in accordance with the State Constitution, he will seem to have validated the objections of many people who feel that judges are not really faithful to constitutions.

Already, in several states, dates and places have been chosen for Republican presidential debates.  See this story.  The earliest one will be in the spring of 2011, at the Ronald Reagan library in Simi Valley, California.  No Republican has formally declared for the presidential nomination yet.

On December 16, the 11th circuit heard arguments in Grizzle v Kemp, 10-12176, which concerns the constitutionality of a 2009 Georgia law that says no one may run for a local school board if they have an immediate family member who is a school principal, assistant principal, or on administrative staff, in a school in that district.  The U.S. District Court had declared the law unconstitutional on April 21, 2010.

The two plaintiffs were both denied the ability to run for re-election, in 2009, after the new law took effect.  See this story.

In 1982, in Clements v Fashing, the U.S. Supreme Court said there is no fundamental right to be a candidate for federal office.  However, there was no majority opinion.  Instead, there was one decision signed by four justices, and a contrary opinion also signed by four different justices, and one justice who wrote separately.  This has prevented the Clements case from having much influence.

The issue of qualifications to hold any particular office is distinct from the ballot access issue.  When a law provides that a certain type of person is not eligible to hold the office, the person can’t even claim the office if he or she wins by write-in votes.  By contrast, ballot access concerns whether someone who is eligible to hold the office is able to gain a place on the ballot.