On November 20, Ralph Nader asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his appeal of a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that said he must pay $82,102 in court costs from 2004. Pennsylvania is the only state that has ever removed a candidate from the ballot and then tried to charge him money for the costs of removal. The idea is so odd, there are very few relevant precedents. The U.S. Supreme Court has never heard a ballot access case from Pennsylvania; possibly this will be the first one. The case is Nader v Seroty, 06-696.

On November 20, several Washington state officials asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the state’s appeal, on the validity of the “top-two” primary. The U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t assigned a case number yet, but the case, if accepted, would be called “State of Washington v Washington State Republican Party”.

The issue is whether the First Amendment Freedom of Association Clause permits a state to hold elections with party labels on the ballot, yet give the parties no ability to nominate candidates. The 9th circuit had ruled earlier this year that if Washington wants to have an election system in which all candidates run for a particular office on the same primary ballot, and the only the top-two vote-getters are allowed onto the November ballot, party labels must be omitted.

In the opinion of Ballot Access News, the only realistic hope to expand presidential general election debates in 2008, is for people to pester the leading Democratic and Republican candidates for president, and get them to say that if they are nominated, they will agree to participate in at least one debate in the general election campaign that includes the leading minor party and independent candidates.

The only general election presidential debate in U.S. history that included the Republican nominee, the Democratic nominee, and anyone else, was in 1992. Ross Perot was included because both major party nominees wanted him included. The opinion of the debate sponsor, the Commission on Presidential Debates, didn’t really matter.

Democrats and Republicans who want to be president will be spending lots of time in New Hampshire and Iowa, during the next year. If, every time they speak to a group of voters, someone asks them to agree to at least one inclusive general election debate, perhaps eventually some of them will make this commitment. A Republican or Democrat who makes such a commitment would gain certain degree of popularity, since polls consistently show that the public likes debates with more than just two participants.