WaPo: “A week before Election Day, Democrats have taken legal action to try to stop thousands of unsolicited text messages encouraging people in Northern Virginia to vote against their candidates.”
The LA Times reports.
Diane Roberts has written this column for The Guardian (U.K.).
Houston Chronicle: “A manual being using to train election judges for next week’s elections contains inaccurate information, reflecting a new voter identification law that has not yet taken effect, Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart said Monday”
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: “An effort to change state law that would make it tougher to recall Republican state senators faltered Monday, as one GOP senator said he wouldn’t go along with it and the chamber’s top leader said the measure was not on a fast track.”
BNA: “A federal judge will hear oral arguments in January over a challenge to the adequacy of Federal Election Commission disclosure rules for groups planning to spend millions of dollars to influence next year’s election campaigns (Van Hollen v. FEC, D.D.C., No. 11-766, scheduling order 10/28/2011).”
The Defense Research Institute has issued this press release.
I wouldn’t bet on it, but I found it interesting that, according to this report in the NYT’s “The Caucus,” “He derided the report in Politico as being based on “anonymous sources.”
Doesn’t this mean that people should judge the credibility of a message in part based on the credibility of the messenger?