On September 1, a Solano County, California Superior Court Judge had ruled that the faction of the American Independent Party that supported Alan Keyes for president in 2008 should answer the complaint in King v Robinson, 034452.  That faction has still not answered the complaint.

On October 29, the case was before a new judge, who set a hearing in early 2011 on the Keyes faction’s request that the case be dismissed, on the grounds that the defendant is Markham Robinson, and that Robinson is no longer state chair of that faction of the party.

The California Secretary of State sends a voter handbook to each voter in the state, before each state election.  The general election booklet has a page for statements from each ballot-qualified party.  The 2010 booklet statement from the American Independent Party is signed by Nathan Sorenson, Chairman.  But then that page lists Markham Robinson’s address, 476 Deodara Street, Vacaville Ca 95688.  It lists Markham Robinson’s e-mail, mark@masterplanner.com.  It lists a phone number that belongs to Robinson, 707-359-4884.  The voters handbook is available on the Secretary of State’s web page, with all that contact information.  This gives the impression that Robinson is still the de facto chair, even though he no longer officially holds that title.  UPDATE:  Markham Robinson is the new Secretary, so it makes sense that his contact information is in the pamphlet.

If the Keyes faction of the American Independent Party really believed that its officers are the legally valid officers, one would expect them to be eager to proceed with the lawsuit.  The matter is been pending for over two years with no actual evidence gathered so far.

The federal government has now obtained a second extension of time in which to respond to the people who filed the lawsuit Clemons v U.S. Department of Commerce, 10-291.  The case is pending in the U.S. Supreme Court and concerns the size of the U.S. House of Representatives.  The government brief is now due November 17.  It had originally been due on September 29, and then the government had won an extension to file by October 29.

The lawsuit argues that the 14th amendment requires “one person, one vote” for representation in the U.S. House.  But because U.S. House districts never include part of one state and part of another state, the voters of some states have almost twice as much representation in the U.S. House as other states.  For example, Montana and Wyoming each have one representative, but Montana has almost twice as many people as Wyoming.  Therefore, the case argues that the only way to cure the problem is to increase the size of the U.S. House.

On October 27, the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld an order of a lower state court, and ruled that voters should choose a new judge in the 13th Judicial Circuit on November 2, 2010, using write-in votes.  No names will be printed on the ballot for that office.  Here is the opinion, which is called Rayner v Barbour, 2010-EC-1682.

Generally, when Mississippi voters use the write-in to elect someone, there is someone’s name on the ballot.  The Circuit Clerks of the various counties in the 13th Circuit had filed the lawsuit against the Secretary of State, alleging that it is not proper to use write-in votes to choose a new judge, in the circumstances that no one’s name is printed on the ballot.  The only candidate who had qualified to have his name on the ballot had died before the ballots were printed, so his name does not appear.  But there was no time for anyone else to qualify to be listed.  The clerks filed the lawsuit because they worry that the voters will not make an informed choice.  But the majority decision says, “The Court observes that all Mississippi elections, except for run-off elections, permit voters to vote by write-in vote.”

The Associated Press initially sent out a story about this lawsuit, saying it was in federal court, but that was an error.