See this early A.P. report.

Bob Bauer has posted the proposed final rule, as well as a bit of explanation about the rule, here. It is not at all clear that this rule, or something like it, would obtain a vote of a majority of the commissioners. From reports of last month’s hearing, as well as press reports, it looks as though Commissioners McDonald, Smith, and Weintraub may not be willing to sign on to a rule such as this one. It will take a vote of four commissioners to enact a final rule.

See here (free registration required).

Ed Feigenbaum pointed me to this news release from Casino Fortune.com, which begins: “Internet Gamblers continued to vote with their Return keys yesterday as John Kerry lost a commanding lead to George W. Bush in an online race for $100,000 in campaign contributions. CasinoFortune.com, one of the leading Internet casino sites, continued its nationwide poll amongst Internet gamblers for the upcoming Presidential election. Thus far, over 11,000 voters have logged on and cast a ballot to decide who receives a campaign windfall.”
If this is serious, the release does not indicate how a foreign corporation gets to make contributions to a presidential candidate and his party.

Smith has rejected the call. BNA has the details here (paid subscription required). The dispute centers on Smith’s views of how to treat 527 organizations during the upcoming rulemaking decision of the FEC. BNA quotes McCain as saying that 527s are “openly flouting the law and openly spending soft money for the express purpose of influencing the presidential election while the FEC sits on its hands once again.”

The Financial Times (UK) offers this report.

The Berkshire Eagle offers this editorial on Vieth.

See here.

See here. (Thanks to Ed Feigenbaum for the pointer.)

I missed this story in my earlier roundup. Thanks to SCOTUSBlog for the pointer.

See here. Great quote from Nate Persily: “‘The question for Justice Kennedy right now is, if what’s happened in Texas is OK, is there really any circumstance under which partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional?’ he said.” My view: I’ll be shocked if Justice Kennedy votes to strike down the Texas redistricting on partisan gerrymandering grounds (putting aside challenges raised under the Voting Rights Act). Justice Kennedy was certainly aware of what was happening in Texas when he wrote his decision; the Vieth plurality even cites to the lower court opinion in the Texas case.

The Oakland Tribune offers this report. See also this Los Angeles Times report.

The New York Times (I’m not sure why David Rosenbaum refers to Justice Scalia’s opinion as the “controlling opinion”) (and see this editorial); The Wall Street Journal (thanks to Steven Sholk for the pointer); The Los Angeles Times; The Washington Post; Chicago Sun-Times; Philalelphia Inquirer; Houston Chronicle.
In the blogosphere, Bob Bauer has posted his thoughts here ; Ed Still is here; Marty Lederman is here. I am much more skeptical than Marty that even state legislators who feel duty bound to uphold the Constitution will have much problem engaging in the most partisan of gerrymanders. It is not as though Justice Kennedy’s opinion gives much hope of anyone ever coming up with a standard that would satisfy him, having rejected the standards in Bandemer, the plaintiffs’ standard, and the three proposed dissents’ standards.

See this press release.