The U.S. Supreme Court sat yesterday (Monday, March 3) but it will not sit again until Monday, March 17. Except in extremely unusual circumstances, it never puts out decisions unless it is in session.
See this provocative article, saying that it is not completely unlikely that the Democratic presidential candidate in 2008 might again poll the most popular votes, yet fail to win the electoral college.
Virtually all major news media, when they refer to Ralph Nader’s 2004 showing, claim that he got .3%.
Actually he got .4%. More exactly, he got .381%. It is convention to round to the nearest digit. Thus, in 1992, Ross Perot got 18.9%. The media always says he got 19%. Quite sensibly, they never say he got 18%.
The only known news source that has the Nader percentage from 2004 as .4% is Ron Gunzberger’s www.politics1.com.
Virtually all major news media, when they refer to Ralph Nader’s 2004 showing, claim that he got .3%.
Actually he got .4%. More exactly, he got .381%. It is convention to round to the nearest digit. Thus, in 1992, Ross Perot got 18.9%. The media always says he got 19%. Quite sensibly, they never say he got 18%.
The only known news source that has the Nader percentage from 2004 as .4% is Ron Gunzberger’s www.politics1.com.
The 5th circuit will hear the Mississippi Democratic Party case on March 5. This is the case over whether the party may close its primary to people who are not willing to say they are bona fide Democrats. The prior court date has been March 6. Thanks to Steve Rankin for this news.
Green Party of Michigan v Land has a hearing in U.S. District Court on March 26. This is the case over whether it violates the U.S. Constitution to give the list of primary voters only to the parties entitled to their own primary. The judge had issued a Temporary Restraining Order on February 28, so that the list will not be distributed to anyone before the case is resolved.
The U.S. Supreme Court hears Riley v Kennedy on March 24. This is a case over the interaction between the federal Voting Rights Act’s pre-clearance provisions, and the power of state courts to disregard that pre-clearance procedure for its own opinions. The underlying issue is whether there should have been a special election to fill a vacant County Commission seat, or whether the Governor could fill the vacancy by appointment. Law Professor Pam Karlan of Stanford is arguing on behalf of the voters who brought the lawsuit.