The U.S. Supreme Court announced on the afternoon of Friday, January 5, that it had agreed to hear 7 particular cases. None of these 7 cases is an election law case. The U.S. Supreme Court won’t say until the morning of January 8 what it has done about the other cases that were on conference on January 5. But from experience, we know that they will either deny them, or delay them, or else tell the opposition to file a response brief.

Two election law cases were on conference on January 5: Wexler v Anderson, and Nader v Seroty. In both those cases, the opposition hadn’t even bothered to file a response brief. Therefore, the news on January 8 for these two cases will be one of these three choices: (1) denied; (2) delayed for the Court to think about it some more; or (3) an order telling the opposition side to file a response.

Wexler v Anderson is on whether there is any constitutional protection against vote-counting machines that don’t leave a paper trail. Nader v Seroty is on whether a state can charge a candidate a very large amount of money to cover costs of removing him or her from the ballot, a practice that seems to conflict with older US Supreme Court opinions outlawing poll taxes and mandatory filing fees.

In the case of the 7 (non-election) cases that the Supreme Court did accept on January 5, in all 7 instances, both sides had filed briefs. It is rare for the Court to take a case when it hasn’t yet heard from both sides.

The Pennsylvania ballot access case filed in federal court on January 10, 2006, is still alive. The case lost in the 3rd circuit in August 2006, but the request for a rehearing en banc is still pending as of January 5, 2007. The case was originally called Rogers v Cortes but later the name was changed to Rogers v Corbett, no. 06-2241.

The 3rd circuit decision said states have an interest in keeping “non-viable” candidates off the ballot. Presumably, “non-viable” means candidates almost certain not to win. This is a radical doctrine, not supported by anything the U.S. Supreme Court has ever said. The request for a rehearing is before all ten full-time judges of the 3rd circuit. The original decision consisted of two part-time judges and only one full-time judge, but the two part-time judges have no vote as to whether the case should be reheard or not.

On January 4, the 7th circuit upheld Indiana’s law, requiring voters who vote at the polls to show a government-issued photo ID. The vote was 2-1. Crawford v Marion Co. Election Board, no. 06-2218.