The Houston Chronicle offers this news update, which begins: “A federal appeals panel indicated today that the ability of Republicans to replace former U.S. Rep. Tom Delay on the ballot rests on whether there was ‘conclusive’ evidence that he had moved to Virginia. The three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals did not indicate when it would rule. But questions from the panel seemed to favor the Democrats’ position that Republican officials could not declare DeLay ineligible for office based on residency prior to election day.” See also my earlier analysis, reaching the conclusion that the 5th Circuit is likely to affirm the district court’s decision preventing the party from naming a replacement for Tom DeLay.

AP offers this report. You can find the ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court here. Thanks to Alec Ewald for the pointer.

The Houston Chronicle offers this report.

See this Washington Post editorial, this Eliza Newlin Carney column, and this Brad Smith blog post.

In These Times offers this analysis.

The San Diego Union-Tribune offers this report, which begins: “A cease-fire between California business and labor groups that followed last year’s contentious statewide special election is threatened by a November ballot proposition that would establish a system of public financing of state political campaigns.” [Disclosure: I am consulting for the Yes on 89 campaign.]

See this column in the Sacramento Bee.

The Boston Globe offers this report.

Readers of this blog may recall the controversy over Prop. 77 in California—the test of the petitions circulated for signature of a redistricting initiative differed in some respects from the official version submitted to the Secretary of State. In the Costa case, the California Supreme Court held that the measure could remain on the ballot, because the differences were not significant enough to mislead voters. It appears Nevada now faces a similar controversy.

Wlater Dellinger has this must-read NY Times commentary on presidential signing statements.

The NY Sun offers this report.

The NY Times offers this report, which begins: “A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the Justice Department cannot begin reviewing documents and other evidence seized from the Congressional offices of Representative William J. Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat at the center of a corruption investigation, until he is given a chance to review the material and return to court to argue that it should be kept from prosecutors.” For more details, see this post by Lyle Denniston of Scotusblog. Thanks to Steven Hueffner for the pointer.

See here. Anything else would be a let down after being university president.

US News and World Report offers this report.