On October 28, several Minnesota organizations jointly filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court, seeking the ability to have their members, who would be both ordinary voters and poll watchers, wear certain kinds of buttons or shirts.  Specifically, Election Integrity Watch wants its activists to be allowed to wear buttons that say “Please I.D. Me”, whether they are at the polls briefly in order to vote, or whether they are serving as election monitors.

Also, members of the Northstar Tea Party want their members to be allowed to wear shirts that say “Tea Party Patriots” when they vote.

The lawsuit asks that a Minnesota election law either be declared unconstitutional, or construed to allow these buttons and shirts.  The law says, “A political badge, political button, or other political insignia may not be worn at or about the polling place on primary or election day.”  The complaint points out that there is no Tea Party on the ballot in Minnesota, and that the buttons and shirts do not relate to any particular candidate or ballot measure that is on the ballot.  See this story.  The lawsuit is Minnesota Majority v Mansky, 10-cv-4401.

California is one of the states that must ask for U.S. Justice Department approval before it alters its election laws.  On August 16, 2010, California had forwarded a copy of the new “top-two” law that goes into effect in 2011, to the Voting Rights Section of the U.S. Justice Department.

On October 25, the Voting Rights Section replied to California, with questions about how “top-two” will affect ethnic and racial minorities.  The questions are limited to past elections in the four covered counties, Kings, Merced, Monterey and Yuba Counties.  After the state answers the questions, the Voting Rights Section has 60 days to evaluate the answers.  “Top-two” cannot be into effect until this process is completed.  Thanks to Rob Richie for this news.

On October 28, the 6th circuit ruled 2-1 that Tennessee may continue to bar ex-felons from registering to vote if they owe child support or restitution payments.  See the opinion, Johnson v Bredesen, here.  This is another case, similar to the one decided two days ago by the 9th circuit on voter registration, that had been pending for over a year since the oral argument.

The majority consists of Judges Deborah Cook and Thomas Ludington, Bush Jr. appointees.  The dissent is by Karen Moore, a Clinton appointee.  The dissent is considerably longer than the majority opinion, and argues that the law does not pass the rational basis test, and that inability to pay child support is not a crime.