On May 3, the U.S. Supreme Court revealed that at its April 30 conference, it had decided to ask the Solicitor General of the United States to submit a brief in Simmons v Galvin, 09-920. This is the case from Massachusetts over whether the Voting Rights Act can ever apply to state laws that prevent felons or ex-felons from registering to vote. It will be fascinating to see what position the Solicitor General takes.

After the Court gets the Solicitor General’s brief, it will decide whether to hear the case.

National Review Online has this interesting interview with Florida Governor Charlie Crist, who says about his decision to be an independent candidate, “I’m much happier now.” Thanks to PoliticalWire for the link.

On April 30, the Arkansas Supreme Court issued this 7-page unanimous opinion in Proctor v Daniels, 10-384. Willard Proctor had been a judge of the Circuit Court in Little Rock, but he had been removed by the State Supreme Court last year for misconduct.

Proctor tried to run for his old seat this year, but was not permitted to get on the ballot. Then he filed to be a write-in candidate, but he was not permitted to do that either. The Arkansas Supreme Court decision strikes down the law that says “any judge removed from office by the Supreme Court cannot be appointed or elected thereafter to serve as a judge.” The Court said this adds to the state constitutional qualifications to be a judge, and statutes can’t do that.

On the other hand, the Court said that Proctor still can’t run for his old office, because the Supreme Court already “removed” him; they didn’t just “suspend” him. The Court says at the end of the decision that lower court judges who were removed by the State Supreme Court may never again get that old job back. Thus, even though the law that dictates this outcome is unconstitutional, in the end it doesn’t make any practical difference. The decision seems eccentric.