Labor has not really attempted to overturn the Indiana “right to work” law, where they had less options at their disposal. But there are tools available in Michigan, as well as a relatively dense unionized labor force ready to fight back.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has returned the controversial voter ID law back to the Commonwealth Court for review in a move that could put an end to voter ID in the state for the year.

The initial reports claimed that the state Supreme Court threw out voter ID, but actually they just remanded it back to the Commonwealth court judge. The nub of the matter concerns the ability for Pennsylvania officials to get a valid ID in the hands of any eligible voter who wants one between now and the election.

Don’t expect yesterday’s Dane County court ruling overturning sections of Wisconsin’s anti-union law to remain operative for long.

Pennsylvania’s voter ID law got debated in the state Supreme Court today. Despite the fact that the state admits there have been no recent prosecutions or even investigations of in-person voter fraud, the state passed a restrictive voter ID law that critics say could disenfranchise up to 750,000 eligible voters in a state with few options besides in-person voting on Election Day.

A judge in Pennsylvania upheld the voter ID law that could disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of legal voters in the state.

After Wi. Supreme Court Justice tried to strangle another Justice, the state judicial commission filed an ethics complaint against him to be decided by his fellow justices. But Prosser came up with an idea to getall four of the conservative justices on the Court to simply recuse themselves from deciding on the complaint, because they witnessed the event personally.

In a way, the idea that the Supreme Court would overturn their landmark ruling in the Citizens United case, in just two years’ time, with the same personnel on the Court based on a state Supreme Court holding in Montana, of all places, was pretty fanciful. And the Court did not suprise anyone.

A ruling in a long-awaited foreclosure case in Massachusetts had an ambiguous result.

The Supreme Court overturned a number of campaign finance laws in the Citizens United ruling over two years ago. And since that time, we have seen the corrosive power of runaway campaign spending, and who it benefits. In fact, the orgy of spending has become so embarrassing, that it has led some to believe that the Supreme Court may reassess their ruling. A Montana case gives them a chance to do that, or duck for now.

The Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments in an important case that could have wide-ranging implications for foreclosures in that state. The case, Roman Pino v. Bank of New York Mellon, could invalidate the ability of banks to refile documents in situations where the initial documents they filed to foreclose on homeowners were fraudulent. Pino went through a foreclosure on his house in 2008, but attorneys found that the mortgage assignment used in the foreclosure proceedings was signed by known robo-signer Cheryl Samons and stamped with a notarization that was out of date.