On August 23, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that Ralph Nader must pay approximately $80,000 in court costs, stemming from the challenge to his signatures in 2004. In re Nomination Paper of Nader, 17 MAP 2005. In Pennsylvania, when a candidate’s petition is challenged by private individuals or groups, the courts themselves must handle the signature-by-signature analysis of whether there are enough valid signatures. If the candidate is told he or she doesn’t have enough signatures, according to today’s ruling, the candidate must pay the court costs.

Nebraska holds its primary in May. At the May primary, no one filed to run for the Democratic nomination for Auditor. The incumbent, Kate Witek, a Republican, did not run for re-election, and the Republicans nominated someone else.

A few days ago, Witek changed her registration from Republican to Democratic, and announced she wanted to run for re-election after all. The Democratic Party then nominated her at its state convention. However, there is no provision in the law for a qualified party to nominate by convention, except for newly-qualifying parties, or in cases at which the primary nominee dies or withdraws. The Democrats say they will sue to get Witek on the ballot as the Democratic nominee. Witek is also free to be an independent candidate, if she can get 2,000 signatures by August 29. Also in the race are Constitution and Green Party nominees.

On August 23, a state court in Alabama ruled that the state’s laws preventing felons and ex-felons from registering to vote cannot be enforced, until the state legislature passes a law explaining the term “moral turpitude”. The State Constitution does not permit those convicted of a crime of “moral turpitude” to register. The Court ruled that the phrase is far too vague, and violates due process, unless or until the legislature passes a law defining which felonies are included in that term. Gooden v Worley, 2005-5778, Jefferson Co. Circuit Court.