The Dallas Morning News offers this report.
AP offers this report, which begins: “A federal appeals court has been asked to delay requirements that Mississippi adopt a party registration system and enact a voter identification law in time for the 2009 elections.”
The Washington Post offers this interesting report.
See this news from Terre Haute, Indiana, which begins: “Although a local judge set a date Thursday to hear a challenge in the city’s mayoral race results, the Indiana Supreme Court may prevent that from ever happening. Judge David Bolk of Vigo County Superior Court Division 3 set the trial for 1:45 p.m. Dec. 17 for Mayor Kevin Burke’s challenge of the election he lost to Mayor-elect Duke Bennett. Bolk also said the recount will start at 9 a.m. Monday. But James Bopp Jr., Bennett’s attorney, on Thursday afternoon filed two mandate actions with the Indiana Supreme Court to overrule Bolk.”
The Cincinnati Enquirer offers this report.
The Washington Post offers this report.
PBS’s NOW will feature this program tonight, and it will be available after tonight on the website. Here is the description: “How safe is your right to vote? Former Justice Department official and voting rights lawyer David Becker, who worked under both President George W. Bush and former President Bill Clinton, alleges a systematic effort to deny the vote to hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of Americans. In a revealing interview with NOW’s David Brancaccio, Becker openly worries that the 2008 election will not be free and fair. Is our government part of the solution, or part of the problem?”
You can find the report here. Key quote from Doug Chapin in the accompanying release: “HAVA undoubtedly brought the change to American elections that many sought after the 2000 election…But the public’s lingering concerns over electronic voting, partisan disputes over voter ID and other issues continue to plague America’s election system.” My own assessment of the state of election administration since the 2000 Florida controversy is here.
Bob Bauer has written this post on this request for an advisory opinion by a new group seeking to push the question of the constitutionality of certain independent expenditure committee activity. Bob’s right that this process could be very important. I expect the issue of contribution limits to independent expenditure committees to reach the Supreme Court soon, though not necessarily through this case or within time for the 2008 elections.
The LA Times offers this report, which begins: “Backers of two campaigns to change California law are crying foul over donations to their opponents made through nonprofit groups that can hide the origin of the money. In their separate protests, organizers of ballot measures to change term limits and restrict governments’ use of eminent domain have highlighted a growing trend: the use of tax-exempt entities to finance political campaigns in a way that withholds from voters the identities of financial backers. In response, a coalition that includes the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. has proposed an initiative to prohibit some nonprofits from contributing. And the watchdog group California Common Cause has asked the state Fair Political Practices Commission to consider new regulations.”