When the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments, it is customary that only one attorney for each side is permitted to speak. Occasionally the Court makes an exception, but if one side wants two attorneys to speak for it, it must get permission. On September 25, the Court refused to let two attorneys speak on the side of Washington state, in the “top-two” case. This probably means that the state’s Attorney General will be the sole speaker on behalf of the Washington state law, and the attorney for the Grange will not be permitted to speak. Alternatively, it is possible that only the Grange’s attorney will speak, and in that case the Washington state Attorney General won’t be allowed to speak.

On September 25, the U.S. Supreme Court said it will hear the Democratic Party’s appeal against the Indiana law requiring voters at the polls to show photo-ID, in order to vote. There are technically two cases, which are combined: Indiana Democratic Party v Rokita, 07-25, and Crawford v Marion County Election Board, 07-21. Both sides on the Indiana case had already filed briefs.

The Court did not say anything today about the Pennsylvania ballot access case, Rogers v Cortes, no. 06-1721. Pennsylvania had not filed a response. The Court almost never takes a case unless it has heard from both sides. If the Court is interested in the Pennsylvania ballot access case, it will ask Pennsylvania to file a response. If the Court has decided to do this, we will find out on October 1. The Court will release most of its September 24 orders on October 1. The only information that the Court released on September 25 are the names of the cases that it definitely decided to hear (also, it refused to hear two particular cases, both of which involve capital punishment). It chose 17 cases. In all 17 cases, the Court had heard from both sides first.

New Jersey holds state legislative elections on November 6, 2007. This year, for the first time, New Jersey has a public funding program for legislative candidates, but only in 3 districts. Libertarian nominee James Scheurer, a financial manager in West Windsor, New Jersey, expects to qualify in his district, the 14th district. If he does qualify, he will be the first minor party or independent legislative candidate in New Jersey to receive public funding.

The New Jersey program is highly discriminatory. If a Republican or Democrat receives $10 contributions from 400 individuals in his or her district, the Democrat or Republican receives $46,000. But any other candidate who receives $10 contributions from 400 individuals in the district gets $21,000. Furthermore, for every $10 contribution beyond 400, the Democratic or Republican gets another $1,200. But for every $10 contribution beyond 400 that any other candidate gets, he or she only gets an additional $52. The maximum that a Democrat or Republican can receive is $534,375; but the maximum that anyone else can receive is $53,000.

The Connecticut public funding law, which is also discriminatory, starts in 2008. The ACLU filed a lawsuit in 2006 on behalf of the Green Party against the discriminatory aspects of the Connecticut law, and a decision on whether a trial is needed to resolve the Connecticut case is expected any day now.

The public funding laws in Maine and Arizona do not discriminate for or against anyone on the basis of partisan affiliation or lack of partisan affilation. The bill for public funding in New Hampshire does not discriminate, nor does the initiative being circulated in Alaska. However, the California bill that will be taken up by the 2008 legislature does discriminate.