Texas HB 1193 has passed all committee hurdles in the House, and is on the consent calendar for a vote in the House on May 12. UPDATE: it did pass the Texas House on May 12. HB 1193 relaxes the deadline for qualified parties to certify the names of their presidential and vice-presidential nominees. Existing law says the certifications are due 70 days before the general election. The bill says they are due on the later of either the 70th day, or the first business day after a party national convention adjourns. The bill’s sponsor is Rep. Kelly Hancock (R-Fort Worth).

This bill exists because both the Democratic and Republican Parties missed the deadline in 2008. The Secretary of State accepted their filings anyway. The public would not have known that the major parties were late, if the Texas Libertarian Party hadn’t noticed. Bob Barr had asked the Texas Supreme Court to remove the major party presidential tickets, but the Texas Supreme Court denied the request with no opinion.

If this bill is signed into law, it will be ironic that Texas will have one of the most flexible deadlines in the nation for a qualified party to certify its presidential nominee, yet the earliest petition deadline for independent presidential candidates. The Texas independent presidential petition is due in the first half of May, but no other state has such a deadline until the second half of June. Colorado, Illinois, and Indiana are the only states with June deadlines; all other states are in July, August and September.

As this World Net Daily article of May 10 shows, Orly Taitz is still actively pursuing legal action over President Barack Obama’s qualifications. Taitz is a southern California attorney. She has not been as well-publicized as Phil Berg, the Pennsylvania attorney who first launched this cause, but she has been working at this since before the November 2008 election and now seems more active than Berg.

The U.S. Supreme Court will issue three election law opinions between May 18 and June 29. They are: (1) Caperton v Massey Coal Company, 08-22, on what to do when a state elects its state court judges and one side in a lawsuit has made huge campaign contributions to sitting judges; (2) Citizens United v FEC, 08-205, on whether people who make and advertise a movie which conveys a message about a federal candidate must follow federal campaign laws; (3) Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v Holder, 08-322, on whether section 5 of the federal Voting Rights (requiring certain states and their political subdivisions to get advance approval from the federal government before changing any election laws) is constitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to put out opinions on these seven dates: May 18, May 26, June 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29. All are Mondays except that May 26 is a Tuesday.