In 2004, Ralph Nader’s petition in Pennsylvania was challenged by his political opponents. Under Pennsylvania’s unique challenge system, because the challengers won their case that Nader didn’t have enough valid signatures, the court said that Nader had to pay all the court costs associated with the petition verification process, a sum exceeding $80,000.

Recently, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (which can be thought of as the highest court for the District’s own government), indicated that it wishes to hear oral argument in March or April in Serody v Nader. This is the case, which has been pending in the D.C. courts for years, over whether one of Ralph Nader’s banks in D.C. should release $30,000 of Nader’s funds to the challengers. Another bank in D.C. has already handed over another $30,000 of Nader’s funds to those challengers, and Serody v Nader also concerns whether that second bank was in error.

Because no one knew until 2009 that the Pennsylvania challengers illegally used state government resources for their challenge, this will be the first oral argument in any court in which the relevance of that illegal activity can be evaluated, in connection with the award of costs.

On January 25, the Indiana Supreme Court said it will hear the state’s appeal in League of Women Voters v Rokita, the case over whether Indiana’s Constitution is violated by the state’s law, requiring voters at the polls to show government photo-ID in order to vote. The State Court of Appeals had invalidated the law on September 17, 2009, by a vote of 3-0. The State Court of Appeals decision is reported at 915 NE 2d 151. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.

Both houses of Congress have bills to provide for public funding of candidates for Congress. They are S752 and HR 1826. The Senate bill has 5 co-sponsors and the House bill has 126 co-sponsors.

Many Democrats in Congress have expressed dismay at the U.S. Supreme Court’s campaign finance opinion, Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, handed down January 21. That decision lets corporations and unions run their own advertising, either supporting or criticizing candidates for federal office. Much commentary has predicted that the ruling will cause renewed interest in public funding of campaigns. However, so far, no new co-sponsors have signed up to either of the public funding bills since the decision came down. It is possible that in the next few weeks and months, though, there will be new support for the bills.