The Hattiesburg American offers this report, which begins: “Hattiesburg didn’t hurt minority participation on the city council when it counted university students as city residents while redrawing ward lines, a federal appeals panel ruled Tuesday.”
You can find the 5th Circuit opinion here.

ACS video interview here.

John Samples has posted this draft on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The National Popular Vote plan (NPV), introduced in more than 40 states, and adopted by 4, proposes an interstate compact to bring about direct election of the president of the United States. The proposal eliminates states as electoral districts in presidential elections by creating a national electoral district for the presidential election, thereby advancing a national political identity for the United States. States with small populations and states that are competitive may benefit from the electoral college. Few states clearly benefit from direct election of the president. NPV brings about this change without amending the Constitution, thereby undermining the legitimacy of presidential elections. It also weakens federalism by eliminating the role of the states in presidential contests. NPV nationalizes disputed outcomes and cannot offer any certainty that states will not withdraw from the compact when the results of an election become known. NPV will encourage presidential campaigns to focus their efforts in dense media markets where costs per vote are lowest; many states now ignored by candidates will continue to be ignored under NPV. For these reasons, states should not join the National Popular Vote compact.

Here. Brad Smith on whether the case will be appealed is here.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer offers this report.

The ACLU has issued this press release.

Roll Call offers this report ($) on the Black Rock AO, which has now been issued. You can read it here. Footnote 1 says that the commission could not reach consensus on whether or not to apply the Emily’s List case, given that it is not final, a good indication that there will not be four votes within the Commission to appeal that case further. (What the SG might do, however, is another matter.)
UPDATE: See also this post at WSJ‘s “Washington Wire.”

Hans von Spakovsky has written this piece for NRO on the DOJ’s section 5 policies.

Barry Friedman has this post on Balkinization. I’ve raised some similar issues here.

The NY Times offers this report.

The Washington Post offers this report.

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy has posted this draft on SSRN, to be presented at this conference.

The Pioneer Press concludes its series on Coleman-Franken with a look at possible reforms.

Many have noted Chief Justice Roberts’ 40-question dissent in Caperton v. Massey. It came in for a lot of criticism at the recent conference on judicial elections I attended in Seattle, with one speaker (not me!) calling the dissent “sophomoric.”
Well now John Elwood, writing in The Green Bag, lets us in on some additional questions (not heretofore seen) in the Chief’s dissent: “The Chief’s dissent listed 40 questions not answered by the majority opinion, ranging from ‘How much money is too much?’ to ‘How many days after a date should you wait before calling?’ and ‘What color socks are you supposed to wear with khakis and oxblood loafers, anyway?'”
Suffice it to say, Justice Kennedy did not answer these questions in the opinion for the majority.