A.P. offers this report.

The opinion is here. Because I am involved in the case, I won’t comment further for now. UPDATE: Here is the Sacramento Bee story on the decision. A.P.’s story is here.

Fred Lewis offers these thoughts in the Texas Observer.

Pam Karlan and Sam Issacharoff have posted Where to Draw the Line? Vieth v. Jubelirer, Cox v. Larios, and Judicial Review of Political Gerrymanders (forthcoming University of Pennsylvania Law Review). Here is the abstract:’

A striking feature of the post-2000 redistricting is not only the continued – indeed, ever-increasing – vigor of partisan line drawing, but the array of doctrinal tools litigators and courts have invoked in attempts to rein it in: Article I; the First Amendment; the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in a wide range of flavors; the Voting Rights Act of 1965; and a variety of state-law principles.
We offer a preliminary reaction to the Court’s decisions in Vieth v. Jubelirer, 124 S.Ct. 1769 (2004), and Cox v. Larios, 124 S.Ct. 2806 (2004), that places those decisions in the broader context of the Court’s failure to confront ends-oriented redistricting practices. In Vieth, four justices declared claims of excessive partisanship nonjusticiable. And yet, three of those justices were soon part of an eight-Justice majority that agreed in Larios to summarily affirm a lower court decision striking down a plan on the grounds that relatively small population deviations were constitutionally impermissible because they reflected blatantly partisan protection of Democratic incumbents while undermining Republican-held seats.
Our central claims are two-fold. First, no matter how difficult judicial review of political gerrymandering claims may be, it is impossible actually to render such claims nonjusticiable. The availability of a range of unavoidable doctrinal claims means that a significant number of the partisan gerrymanders that courts find constitutionally offensive
Share this:

The Washington Post offers this report. Thanks to Karl Manheim for the pointer.

A.P. offers this report.

Knight-Ridder offers Democrats to Challenge Nader Petitions (this in Pennsylvania). In South Carolina, the Charotte Observer offers Groups in S.C. Attack Petitions Favoring Nader. A.P. offers Nader Files Suit to Gain Ballot Spot in Michigan. Thanks to readers for passing along these links.

See here.

See here and here. The New York Times also offers this report on Democratic Party fundraising.

I have posted the five filings here; here; here; here; and here. Thanks to J.J. Gass for sending them along.

NPR offers this audio report entitled “Floridians Get Pre-Affiliated Voter Forms.” Here is the summary: “When a group of new Americans left their naturalization ceremony in Jacksonville, Fla., last month, they were handed voter registration forms that had already been marked in ink for the Republican Party. NPR’s Phillip Davis reports.”

A.P. has the details here. Thanks to Ed Still for the pointer. If anyone has the document or a link to it, let me know and I’ll link or post it.

The Hill offers this report.

BNA reports here (paid subscription required) that “The Federal Election Commission has agreed to a fast-track schedule that would allow a federal court to take up by Aug. 12 a challenge to restrictions on political advertising linked to the U.S. Senate race in Wisconsin.” My earlier coverage is here and here.