NOM filed the injunction in Rhode Island in October 2010, and a district judge rejected it. NOM then appealed to the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. Judges Juan R. Torruella, Michael Bounding and Kermit V. Lipez dismissed their appeal on Thursday.

“Because NOM’s vagueness arguments are without merit, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying preliminary relief without explicitly reaching the question of vagueness,” the court wrote. “For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the district court’s order denying NOM’s motion for a preliminary injunction.”

The court rejected a similar case in Maine brought by NOM.

The court said Maine’s laws “neither erect a barrier to political speech nor limit its quantity. Rather, they promote the dissemination of information about those who deliver and finance political speech, thereby encouraging efficient operation of the marketplace of ideas.”

NOM has challenged campaign finance laws in several states and has promised its donors secrecy.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has strongly pressured New York legislators to offer a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in the state, and on Tuesday, Assemblyman Daniel O’Donnell introduced the bill.

NOM has stepped in to oppose the bill and plans to spend $500,000 on television ads. NOM has pledged another $1 million to support candidates that oppose rights for same-sex couples and reward legislators that vote against the marriage bill.

The ad that NOM has launched in New York is a repeat of one the group ran in the state in 2009.

The ad says, “Massachusetts public schools teach second graders that boys can marry other boys.” It’s a similar line to one used in Rhode Island earlier this year: “Massachusetts’ public schools teach kids as young as kindergartners about gay marriage.”

The contents of the Rhode Island ad were ruled false by fact-check website Politifact:

The National Organization for Marriage mailing says that Massachusetts public schools teach kindergartners about gay marriage. The wording, including the present tense verb, gives the impression this is happening now, in many schools.

But the group’s only evidence is two incidents five years ago. It’s possible that somewhere, in one of the 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts, other kindergartners have been taught about same-sex marriage. But NOM couldn’t cite any other examples. We find its statement False.

Here’s the ad that NOM is running in New York:

The Human Rights Campaign’s Kevin Nix hit back at NOM over the ad. “Independent fact checkers will quickly determine, as they did previously with other NOM propaganda, that things don’t quite add up in this New York commercial,” he said in a statement. “Fear and fiction is the mother’s milk of this secretive, virulently anti-gay organization.”

In Rhode Island, the head of the National Organization for Marriage-Rhode Island claimed that the majority of Rhode Islanders oppose same-sex marriage. A bill to legalize same-sex marriage has been working its way through the General Assembly.

On a panel hosted by WPRI, the group’s executive director Christopher Plante said, “I don’t believe [House Speaker] Gordon Fox had the votes. Our head count showed pretty clearly that they didn’t have the votes and he had to make the decision he did,” he said. “Similarly, the people of Rhode Island don’t want same-sex marriage.”

Politifact ran his statement through their fact-checking service and ruled it “Pants on Fire.” Here’s Politifact’s rationale:

The most recent polls from Brown, RI-GLAD and even NOM-RI — Plante’s organization — show the opposite.

Not only did the trends in the NOM-RI and RI-GLAD polls show opposition to same-sex marriage evaporating, the Brown and RI-GLAD polls showed that the public wants gay couples to have the right to marry, even if you assume that every voter who didn’t express an opinion was opposed to gay marriage.

Plante’s assertion isn’t just false. It’s ridiculous. We rate it Pants On Fire!

Presently, the Washington Post reports that the resolution has 24 supporters in the Senate, and if those 24 maintain their commitment to passing the bill, it will have just enough votes for passage; there are 47 state senators in Maryland. Should that happen, the Democrat-controlled House of Delegates is expected to pass the bill, and Gov. Martin O’Malley has already promised to sign it into law if it makes it to his desk. If SB 116 passes, Maryland will become the sixth state (and seventh jurisdiction overall, including D.C.) in which same-sex marriage is legal.

A similar bill has been drafted in Washington state and has quickly been gathering co-sponsors. It is currently in the Washington House Judiciary Committee, although it shares a slate with a competing bill that would amend the Washington constitution to define marriage as being between a man and woman.

Indeed, not all progress in legislatures across the country is toward legalizing marriage rights for all citizens. Of the five states in which same-sex marriage is currently legal, two are considering rolling back the law and instituting same-sex marriage bans. Iowa’s House of Representatives passed a resolution at the end of January that would allow the public to vote on banning same-sex marriage. Though Democrats outnumber Republicans in the Iowa Senate 26 to 24, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal is concerned enough about the bill’s chances that he hopes to block a Senate vote on the resolution altogether. Iowa’s House and Senate would have to approve the measure in two consecutive General Assemblies — which are two years apiece — before it could be put to referendum.

Meanwhile, Republican legislators in New Hampshire have proposed three separate bills that would repeal the state’s same sex marriage law. The House Judiciary Committee will hold public hearings this week to determine whether any of the bills will be put to the floor for a vote. Although Republicans in the state netted massive wins in the November elections, public opinion polls show that a majority of New Hampshirites oppose the repeal of same-sex marriage.

The battleground over same-sex marriage of course does not end with those states. The Indiana House on Tuesday passed a ban on gay marriage, an action that appears redundant at first glance, as Indiana already made gay marriage illegal in 2005. However, the new bill extends not only to marriage, but would insert language into Indiana’s constitution to deny legal rights to anything “substantially similar” to marriage. Constitutional amendments in Indiana must be voted on in two separate legislative sessions and then approved in a public vote.

Bridging the gap between outright bans and marriage rights for all are the civil unions bills currently being debated in several legislatures across the country. Although supporters are struggling to pass civil unions bills in Colorado and Rhode Island, a Hawaii bill approving civil unions has passed a House vote and, following a one-day delay, is scheduled for a final vote in the Senate today. The Senate overwhelmingly passed an earlier version of the bill, and Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D) has pledged to sign it into law.

Correction: This article originally reported that to overrule a constitutional amendment in Iowa, the legislature must approve a measure two consecutive years before it could be put to referendum. Actually, the legislature must approve of a measure two consecutive General Assembly sessions, which are two years each. The story has been amended.

While self-identified Republicans may enjoy an enthusiasm gap over Democrats, another defining moment of the 2010 election cycle is the large uptick in third party candidacies.

A Smart Politics analysis of more than 17,000 general election U.S. House contests since 1932 finds there are more third party and independent candidacies in the 2010 election cycle than in any midterm election since 1934.

In total, there are 443 such candidates on ballots across the nation, up 42.4 percent from 2008 and 56.5 percent from the last midterm election in 2006.

The Libertarian Party leads the way in the third-party surge with 153 candidates across the country, followed by the Green Party with 58 and the Constitution Party with 39. Among such third-party candidacies, only independent Rhode Island gubernatorial candidate Lincoln Chafee looks poised to win on Tuesday, though Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s write-in re-election bid in Alaska and former Rep. Tom Tancredo’s Constitution Party challenge for governor in Colorado are not out of the question either.

On the whole, though, these third-party challenges — predominantly coming from conservatives — could help tip the election to the Democrat in a few tight races tomorrow.

The first major trend is a response to the new Obama health care law, in which several states are offering citizens the chance to cast a largely symbolic vote against its implementation within the state’s borders. The initiatives seem destined to fail in the courts, but I’ve written a story today about how that fact hasn’t stopped a combination of conservative activists and health care industry backers from trying to push them through nearly 40 state legislatures as a means of taking a potshot at reform and touting its unpopularity. After passing overwhelmingly by referendum during Missouri’s August primary election, similar propositions exempting a state’s citizens from the mandate to purchase health insurance will appear on the ballot in Arizona, Colorado and Oklahoma next month.

The second big issue, which some strategists are already predicting will be the Democrats’ 2012 version of Rove’s same-sex marriage ban in 2004, is the legalization of marijuana. Legalization of cultivation, possession and transportation for personal use is on the ballot this year in California, while the legalization of medical marijuana (which California already enjoys) is on the ballot in Arizona, Oregon and South Dakota. And some analysts are already predicting the California measure might help drive turnout among young people, who in turn will be more likely to vote for Democrats Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer over their Republican opponents in California’s statewide races:

Seizing on new independent polling data, proponents of Proposition 19 — the Golden State ballot measure that would make possessing and growing marijuana legal — argue the measure is going to drive younger-voter turnout in such a way that it will benefit the Democrats statewide, from gubernatorial retread Jerry Brown to Sen. Barbara Boxer.

“It literally is the thumb on the scale that has been generally missed by the polling models out there, and it is going to have an impact not only on the initiative but everything else on the ballot including the candidates,” said Dan Newman, consultant for the “Yes on 19” campaign.

Also up for a vote: Whether the state of Rhode Island should change its name.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, and the Courage Campaign today called on the National Organization for Marriage, or NOM, to explain why its tax-exempt charitable organization, the Ruth Institute – a project of NOM’s Marriage Education Fund – is violating federal laws by intervening on behalf of a candidate for elected office.

This past Monday, Ruth Institute President Jennifer Roback Morse spoke on behalf of her organization at a campaign stop of the “Vota Tus Valores” bus tour, a NOM-backed independent expenditure in support of California Republican U.S. Senate candidate Carly Fiorina in San Diego. At the campaign event Morse talked about the role of the Ruth Institute, held up the organization’s signage and closed her remarks by saying, “We’re very glad to be part of this electoral effort.” (Watch the Courage Campaign’s video of Morse speaking at event.)

Morse’s campaign appearance followed a NOM-issued press release titled “National Organization for Marriage and Ruth Institute Join Bus Tour Supporting Carly Fiorina in California.” The release states that “Brian Brown, president of NOM, and Jennifer Roback Morse, president of The Ruth Institute, a project of NOM’s Marriage Education Fund, will both be supporting the bus tour as it makes its way around California.” In addition to supporting Fiorina, the NOM charitable group has also illegally participated in a campaign to elect California judges.

In other words, HRC is arguing that although NOM is a 501(c)4 and therefore allowed to do political advocacy (up to a degree), its Marriage Education Fund broke the law because it’s registered as a 501(c)3 — which can receive tax-exempt donations but cannot do any political work as a result.

It’s hard to say without further investigation to what extent Ruth Institute President Jennifer Roback Morse’s appearances and other activities on behalf of Fiorina constitute sufficient material support to justify a complaint. NOM’s 501(c)4, for its part, is already fighting numerous cases in Maine, Rhode Island, and other states for the right to keep its donor lists secret even when it chooses to advocate on behalf of candidates in state races.

Gallant is an associate at the firm of Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom. The firm’s head, James Bopp, Jr., is the conservative lawyer behind much of the turmoil in election law these days: he argued the Citizens United case at every level up to the Supreme Court, for instance. The firm is currently arguing approximately 50 cases around the country for NOM and other groups that center around the issues of nonprofit organizations, political speech, and their First Amendment rights in the wake of Citizens United.

In short, Gallant told me, groups like NOM, which are registered as 501(c)4 “social welfare organizations” and not political committees, are making the case that states are acting unconstitutionally by compelling them to register as political committees (PACs) when they decide to spend money on elections. The brief that NOM filed on September 14, argues as much; however, it is 42 pages long and full of legalese, so I asked Gallant to explain it a bit.

The first claim NOM makes in its brief is that the group’s “injury is the chill to speech caused by Defendant’s prospective enforcement of Rhode Island law or prosecution of NOM,” and that, therefore, “NOM has standing to seek relief from the chill.” It seems a little odd for the group to claim injury based on the State of Rhode Island potentially enforcing its laws and prosecuting NOM in the future, but Gallant argues that such claims — called “pre-enforcement challenges” — actually aren’t that odd at all:

“That’s typical. It’s what’s called a pre-enforcement challenge and its often recognized in First Amendment contexts in which an organization is faced with either doing its speech and being charged by an enforcement agency or holding off on its speech  The speech is said to be ‘chilled’ and the organization can seek relief with a preliminary injunction.”

Another important claim in the brief is that “The Rhode Island Law is Vague, and therefore Overbroad.” Vague and Overbroad, again, are legal terms of special significance, explains Gallant:

“In a First Amendment context, vagueness is a special concern. If a group or individual doesn’t know if what they want to do is regulated, then they take a wide berth around it… Overbreadth is when the law sweeps in conduct or communications that cannot constitutionally be regulated.”

“An organization can’t be swept into the political action committee regulatory scheme unless its either under control of a candidate or its major purpose is the election or defeat of a candidate [NOM is neither]. The communication itself may be regulable — in other words it may fall under a constitutionally proper definition of an expenditure — but a lot of states, based on that, sweep the organization itself into regulation as a political committee and you can’t do that.”

Basically, NOM is testing the waters in a number of states, challenging state laws that place restrictions on corporations spending in state elections after the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that they have a right to do so. In that same ruling, however, the Supreme Court upheld current federal disclosure laws 8-1, so NOM’s claim that it shouldn’t be compelled to disclose its donors to state election boards seems like it’s on more shaky ground.

In a lawsuit filed last week against the state, the National Organization for Marriage says it should not have to report its expenditures or comply with spending limits or bans that are required for political action committees.

The group – which held a rally against gay marriage on the State House lawn in July, sparking a counter-rally — argues it shouldn’t be considered a PAC, and says the rules for PACs are burdensome and interfere with free speech.

NOM’s tactic — flout an individual state’s campaign finance laws by failing to register as a PAC and to report its donors, then sue the state for interfering with free speech if its election board attempts to force the group to comply — is pretty standard fare by now. The group is engaged in similar lawsuits in California and Maine, and it’s currently refusing to register as PAC despite its political activity in the state of Minnesota as well.

Most independent observers predict NOM’s challenges will eventually fail — the group has already lost a similar case in the Supreme Court regarding disclosure of its political activity in the state of Washington — but the group’s plan, for now, seems to be to delay as long as possible. It’s got deep enough pockets to fight these cases in the courts for months — or even years — allowing its political spending in state races, meanwhile, to go undisclosed until long after the elections in question have been decided.

The letter comes in the midst of a broad lobbying effort by renewable energy advocates to pass this year an RES, which would require that a certain percentage of the country’s electricity come from renewable sources, like wind and solar. The American Wind Energy Association is planning a week full of events on the RES this week, including running television ads in support of the provision.

The governors — the chairman and the vice chairman of the group, which includes 28 governors as members — also penned an op-ed on the topic in Politico today:

The letter was also sent to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

[Nevada] has a 14.3 percent unemployment rate, the highest in the country, and it has so far received $561.55 per person in stimulus funds. That’s a little more than half of the average stimulus per person received by the state with the lowest unemployment rate in the country: North Dakota has an unemployment rate of 3.6 percent, but it has received $1,059.95 per person in stimulus money. The District of Columbia has an unemployment rate of 9.8 percent, and has received $5,748.61 per person. That’s more than ten times the per person amount received by Nevada, which has higher unemployment.

As I have written before, the unemployment crisis is in part a regional one, though the response has largely been national. If I had my druthers, I would push for more specific stimulus for the places worst-hit by the recession: the real outliers, Michigan, California, Rhode Island, Florida and Nevada.