AP offers this report, which begins: “A Democratic activist sued the national and state parties in federal court Thursday over the decision to strip Florida of its delegates for next year’s presidential nominating convention.” UPDATE: Richard Winger has posted the complaint here.
The Politico offers this report.
See here. Apparently the fraud involved absentee ballots, though the report does not make this clear.
Pete Du Pont has written this Opinion Journal piece.
The NY Times offers this report.
See this post on the Project Vote website.
This news report begins: “IN A landmark decision supporting Australians’ right to vote, the High Court has struck down a Federal Government ban on all prisoners voting at elections. A majority on the bench accepted a claim by a Victorian Aboriginal prisoner, Vickie Lee Roach, that the ban was unconstitutional. The ban on all prisoners was imposed by the Howard Government in changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act in 2006. Previously, only prisoners serving sentences of more than three years were prevented from voting.” The High Court issued this release, but the opinion is not yet released: “The court did not explain its reasoning. That is expected to come with a full judgement in the next few months. In recognition that an election is looming, it issued orders saying the ban was unconstitutional because it was contrary to requirements that Parliament be directly chosen by the people.”
Here is a fascinating story from the Clarke Times-Courier with the subhead: “A decision by county supervisors not to proceed with a request to bailout from under the watchful eye of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 is stirring passions on both sides of the issue and insinuations of political pandering.” Thanks to a reader for passing this along.
George Skelton has written this LA Times column.
AP offers this interesting report.
Freed of her EAC gag order, Tova Wang has written a Washington Post oped, “A Rigged Report on U.S. Voting?” For those following the controversy, it is good to finally hear Wang’s perspective on the issues. She concludes:
- Even without a smoking gun showing political motives in the handling of the draft, the results are disappointing. This is not the way an institution created to promote democracy should function. A government entity that seeks democratic progress should be transparent. It should not be in the business of suppressing information or ideas. Such an institution must be thoroughly insulated from political interference from outside operatives or other parts of the executive branch.
We need an institution like the Election Assistance Commission to provide guidance and research information to the states, election officials, elected leaders and voters. But this agency’s structure and procedures need to be seriously reexamined in light of this episode. I support a strong, well-funded EAC that can help our country find reforms to the election system that will make voting more accessible, fair and accurate. But only after it finds some reforms for itself.
I have posted the court’s order in Gonzalez v. State of Arizona here. This is the case on remand from the Supreme Court, then named Purcell v. Gonzalez. The Arizona Republic story is here. UPDATE: Jon Greenbaum writes: “To be clear, the court’s decision does not reach plaintiffs’ claims that Proposition 200 is an undue burden that violates the fundamental right to vote under the 14th Amendment and that Proposition 200 violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.”