The U.S. Supreme Court has never had a case involving the 26th amendment, which says, “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of age.”

On December 7, some Texas voters asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case against the Texas law that treats voters age 65 and above differently than it treats younger voters. Texas lets voters age 65 and above cast a no-excuse absentee ballot, but does not permit any other voters to do so. Cascino v Nelson, 23-612. Here is the cert petition.

A few years ago a similar Indiana law was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court asked for a response from the state of Indiana, but then afterwards the Court refused to hear the Indiana case, which was Tully v Okeson, 20-1244. Thanks to Democcracy Docket for the news about the Texas case.

On December 12, the Georgia voters who had originally challenged the 2021 U.S. House district boundaries, and who had won, asked the same court to invalidate the new boundaries that the state created last week. Pendergrass v Raffensperger, n.d., 1:21cv-5339. Here is their brief. A hearing will be held December 20.

The uncertainty over the eventual Georgia boundaries makes it increasingly likely that the districts won’t be settled by the start of the petitioning period for minor party and independent candidates for U.S. House. In that event, under several Georgia precedents, the state will be required to cut the number of signatures.

On December 11, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Boydston v Weber, 23-439. This is a case challenging aspects of the California presidential primary. It was filed by voters who believe that because California holds presidential primaries for its six qualified parties, the Constitution demands that California hold a presidential primary just for independent voters. That ballot would contain the name of all the presidential candidates listed in all six of the partisan presidential primaries. The case was filed by persons associated with the Independent Voters Project, and was originally in state court.