some effect on the right of its citizens to elect the members of the Puerto Rico Legislature ..., the effect is minimal, and like that in Valenti, it does not fall disproportionately on any discrete group of voters, candidates, or political parties.” Id. at 12,102 S.Ct. 2194. Following Valenti and Rodriguez, a number of courts have upheld interim legislative appointments of substantial duration. See, e.g., Lynch v. Illinois State Bd. of Elections, 682 F.2d 93, 95 (7th Cir.1982) (rejecting plaintiffs’ assertion “that the twenty-five month suspension of their right to vote offends the Constitution of the United States,” and finding that “the district court failed to give proper deference to the judgment of the Illinois legislature”); Judge v. Quinn, 623 F.Supp.2d 933, 940 (N.D.Ill.2009) (<HOLDING>). Again, those cases do not involve vacancies
holding that the right to vote is fundamental holding that state statute providing for filling of united states senate vacancy by appointment did not violate plaintiffs right to vote and that the nearly twoyear period between the vacancy and the next election in that case was not impermissibly long holding that state may not exclude convicted felon as a candidate for the united states senate holding that a fair referendum assuring the equal right to vote under  101a1 includes the right of members to have the vote scheduled at a time when they can exercise their vote and the right to be free from intimidation or fear of reprisal holding that prosecution of defendant in the united states for hostage taking based on acts committed outside the united states did not violate due process