SUPREMES VOID OHIO RULING

The United States Supreme Court "made our work easier today," according to Lester A. Pines, [UW '74] attorney for the State of Wisconsin Government Accountability Board. Pines spoke with Milwaukeeworld shortly after the court issued its ruling in Jennifer Brunner Secretary of State of Ohio v. Republican Party of Ohio et al. [pdf]. At the time, his office was preparing a brief to be filed in the case of Van Hollen v. Government Accountability Board, in Wisconsin Circuit Court Dane County 2008CV004085. Although the court's brief ruling does not fatally wound Van Hollen's case, perhaps, "it comes about as close as you can," Pines said.
In both cases, "the Republican party tried to force its interpretation of the Help American Vote Act," Pines said, specifically referring to Sec 303 HAVA, 42USC Sec. 15483.
The Supreme Court expressed "no opinion as to whether HAVA is being properly implemented," the justices wrote in a per curiam decision (made in the name of the Court, rather than by individual judges).
Attorney Michael Maistelman, who has represented the Democratic party and its candidates in many GAB and court cases
However, the judges said the Republican party likely had no standing as a private litigant to demand a Temporary Restraining Order to compel election officials to enforce HAVA, therefore voiding the Ohio District Appelate Court's ruling.
Kevin St. John, [U Chicago '00] Special Assistant Attorney General for Public Affairs and Policy in the Wisconsin Department of Justice said the Supreme Court ruling would have no effect on his department's case in an e-mail to milwaukeeworld:

The United States Supreme Court decision does not affect Attorney General Van Hollen’s lawsuit against the Government Accountability Board. The United States Supreme Court’s ruling held, in effect, that there was no private right of action to enforce HAVA in federal court. In that case, private persons were plaintiffs. Attorney General Van Hollen’s action, by contrast, is brought in his official capacity to enforce state election law in state court, as he is authorized to do under state law.

SHOULD PRIVATE LITIGANTS HAVE RIGHT TO INTERVENE?
Pines said, Sen. Christopher Dodd, the sponsor of HAVA legislation in the Senate preferred that private litigants be given this right, but the House of Representatives did not concur, and it did not appear in the final legislation.
Pines says this clearly shows legislative intent, which would be difficult for courts to ignore.
He also explained why he thought Van Hollen brought his case in State, rather than Federal Court. "Van Hollen's position is that HAVA was incorporated into Wisconsin law. He is asking state election officials to enforce state laws as he sees them, and that's why the case is in Dane county."