The Utah legislature’s Districting Committee settled on boundaries for a 4th seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, on November 29. The Utah Districting Committee is composed of 5 State Senators and 7 Representatives. It exists solely for the task of dividing up the state from 3 U.S. House districts, to 4 districts.

The Utah legislature is in special session, and is expected to pass the new plan early in December. This work anticipates that Congress will pass HR 5388, also in December. HR 5388 would temporarily expand the size of the U.S. House from 435 seats to 437, with the two extra voting seats going to the District of Columbia and Utah. Utah was chosen because the expectation is that the new member from D.C. would be a Democrat, and the new member from Utah would be a Republican, so neither major party would be disadvantaged. The other basis for choosing Utah is that it came closest to “deserving” another seat, when the 2000 census results were translated into seats for each state.

The new Utah congressional district is centered on southwest Utah.

During August and September 2006, five ballot-access-related cases were decided by US Courts of Appeals, and one was decided by a State Supreme Court. Since the losing side is permitted to ask for U.S. Supreme Court review, three months after the lower court decision, now is the time when the three months is running out. And, most of these cases are being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The state of Washington asked for U.S. Supreme Court review in State of Washington v Washington State Republican Party, on November 20, and it is now docketed as 06-730. The Washington Grange filed its own cert petition, no. 06-713.

The state of New York asked for U.S. Supreme Court review on November 29, in New York State Board of Elections v Lopez Torres. It doesn’t have a docket number yet.

As already noted, on November 20, Ralph Nader asked for U.S. Supreme Court review in Nader v Seroty, no. 06-696.

No one knows yet if the state of Ohio will ask for U.S. Supreme Court review in Libertarian Party of Ohio v Blackwell. The state’s petition would be due on December 6.

The state of Illinois says it will appeal Lee v State Board of Elections to the U.S. Supreme Court, if the 7th circuit won’t give it a rehearing, but that state request for a rehearing is still pending.

The Green, Libertarian and Constitution Parties of Pennsylvania say they will appeal Rogers v Corbett to the U.S. Supreme Court if the 3rd circuit won’t give them a rehearing, but that rehearing request is still pending.

The U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t had an election law case (other than on redistricting or campaign finance) since 2005, when it ruled that Oklahoma did not violate the U.S. Constitution by refusing to let the Libertarian Party invite all registered voters to vote in its primary, in Clingman v Beaver.

On December 14, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court will hold a hearing at 1:30 pm. The issue is whether Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli (who had tried to get on the ballot for U.S. Senate) should be required to pay almost $90,000 in court costs. In Pennsylvania, uniquely among the 50 states, when a candidate’s petition is challenged, only state court judges can determine whether the petition has enough valid signatures. The constitutionality of this concept is not being considered by the Commonwealth Court. However, Ralph Nader has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that the whole idea violates the U.S. Constitution.