On November 27, 2006, the Oregon Democratic Party intervened in a pending federal lawsuit, for the purpose of supporting the law passed in 2005 in Oregon that makes it illegal for primary voters to sign an independent candidate’s petition. The case is Wasson v Bradbury, 06-cv-6205.

The brief uses the term “one man, one vote” and claims that the law making it illegal for primary voters to sign for an independent petition is required to defend the principle of “one man, one vote”. It says, “It is hard to imagine a rule more closely tailored to the ‘one person, one vote’ purpose than the one-nomination rule embodied in ORS 254.069.”

“One man, one vote” was coined in South Africa in 1960. It means that each voter should be treated equally. “One man, one vote” is not violated when a state lets all voters make multiple nominations. The law in 48 states (all but Texas and Oregon), lets all voters make multiple nominations. Therefore, all voters are being treated equally by those 48 states. It is logically absurd that any attorney should claim that the policy of 48 states violates “one man, one vote”, since “one man, one vote” has been the law of the land in the U.S. since 1964, when the Supreme Court required equal populations in legislative and congressional districts.

The post made earlier on November 30 discusses U.S. Supreme Court involvement with ballot access cases, or with cases that have ballot access implications. But there are several other interesting election law cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Initiative & Referendum Institute is hoping to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its case against a Utah law that says ordinary initiatives only need 50% to pass, except that if the initiative deals with hunting, it needs 66.67% to pass. The case is Initiative & Referendum Institute v Herbert, no. 06-534. The state’s response was due November 20 but does not seem to have been received yet.

Congressman Robert Wexler, a Florida Democrat, is hoping to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case that alleges the U.S. Constitution is offended when some counties in Florida use touch-screen vote-counting machines with no paper trail, whereas other counties do have a paper trail. The case is Wexler v Anderson, no. 06-401. Florida elections officials had received permission from the Court to file a late response, due November 20, but then they decided not to file any response.

Only in the last year has Kentucky been keeping a tally of how many voters are registered as members of minor parties. Furthermore, when Kentucky started tallying this information, it excluded the voters who had always been registered in minor parties, and only started counting people who had registered in them after the policy started. Therefore, the numbers have been very small.

Nevertheless, they have risen this year. In May 2006, the numbers were: Libertarian 187, Green 102, Constitution 28, Reform 12, Socialist Workers 0.

Now they are: Libertarian 341, Green 173, Constitution 49, Reform 25, Socialist Workers 15.

Kentucky does this tally for any party that has been on the ballot in the last twenty years and is still in existence.