On January 13, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Sifton, a Carter appointee, ruled that neither the U.S. Constitution, nor any New York laws, prohibit the New York City Council from abolishing term limits for itself and for the city’s executive positions such as Mayor. The decision is 65 pages long.

The plaintiffs include the City Comptroller, the City Public Advocate, and a large variety of groups and individuals. Among the individual plaintiffs are Mike Long, chair of the state Conservative Party; and Sarah Lyons of the Committee for a Unified Independent Party. Organizations include the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) and U.S. Term Limits.

The New York city voters had passed city term limits in 1993, and had reaffirmed them in 1996. But nothing in the City Charter says that the city council is prohibited from repealing a city law passed by initiative. The only exceptions are that the City Council cannot change the length of the terms of a member of the Council, cannot abolish itself, and cannot curtail the power of an elective officer. None of those exceptions relates to whether there should be term limits. The plaintiffs have not decided whether to appeal.

On January 12, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Texas Democratic Party v Andrade, 08-540. The party had complained that the state should not be using e-Slate vote-counting equipment, because of the way that equipment handles voters who use the straight-ticket device.

If a voter using e-Slate machines uses the straight-ticket device, and that same voter also casts a vote in a particular race for the nominee of the same party, the machine then erases the vote cast by that voter in the one race. Apparently many voters use the straight-ticket device. But, just for emphasis, they may also “re-vote” for a particular candidate they especially want to win. That has the effect of cancelling out the voter’s vote in the one race in which he or she was especially eager to vote.

It would seem rational that Texas Democrats, having lost this lawsuit, would support the pending bill in the legislature to eliminate the straight-ticket device.

Pennsylvania attorney Phil Berg, who filed the first lawsuit on whether President-Elect Barack Obama meets the constitutional qualifications for president, had had two requests pending in the U.S. Supreme Court, both called Berg v Obama. On January 12, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Berg’s request that the Court take his case for full review. His request for injunctive relief is on the January 16 conference. Odds are extremely high that it will also be denied, but that won’t be known until January 21. The Court is closed on January 19 and January 20. UPDATE: technically, the U.S. Supreme Court did not deny cert. Instead, the order is: “08-570. The petition for a writ of cert before judgment is denied.” That is slightly different than just “cert denied.”