From the Political Wire: a judge has knocked out Nevada's famous none-of-the-above line on their elections. Apparently Republicans went after it because they thought it would hurt them (I have no idea whether they are right or not). So says election law maven Rick Hasen.
I have no particular views of either the substantive merits or the legal justification of NOTA. However, I'm for it for two reasons. One is that I like quirky local variation in general; it's a big nation, and it's fun when people do things differently. The other is that every once in a while someone will say that if only there was a none of the above option that the two clowns who the major parties have nominated would be buried by it, and Nevada allowed us to know that in fact hardly anyone would vote for the NOTA line.
So I'm definitely rooting for this one to be overturned. Again, regardless of the substantive or legal merits (and, substantively, it's most likely something like open and closed primaries that turns out to be not worth the fuss of contesting in most cases, so there's that).