“Trump campaign wants FEC to block Harris from accessing Biden’s campaign money”

ABC News

The Trump campaign has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission claiming that Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign cannot take over President Joe Biden’s campaign’s money, calling it a violation of campaign finance contribution limit.

“Kamala Harris is seeking to perpetrate a $91.5 million dollar heist of Joe Biden’s leftover campaign cash — a brazen money grab that would constitute the single largest excessive contribution and biggest violation in the history of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended,” the complaint filed Tuesday and obtained by ABC News, claims. . . . 

Other election experts ABC News has spoken with have refuted that argument, saying that has not been the FEC’s interpretation of federal election law.

“That might’ve been an issue if this were their first cycle as a ticket, but under FEC rules it’s been Harris’s campaign committee too since 2020 — she’s not being added now,” said Adav Noti, a former FEC attorney who now serves as executive director of watchdog group Campaign Legal Center.

Related: CBS News and The Hill 

Share this:

“State election directors fear the Postal Service can’t handle expected crush of mail-in ballots”

AP:

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — State election directors from across the country voiced serious concerns to a top U.S. Postal Service official Tuesday that the system won’t be able to handle an expected crush of mail-in ballots in the November election.

Steven Carter, manager of election and government programs for the postal service, attempted to reassure the directors at a meeting in Minneapolis that the system’s Office of Inspector General will publish an election mail report next week containing “encouraging” performance numbers for this year so far.  . . . 

But state election directors stressed to Carter that they’re still worried that too many ballots won’t be delivered in time to be counted in November. They based their fears on past problems and a disruptive consolidation of postal facilities across the country that Postmaster General Louis DeJoy has put on hold until after the elections.

Share this:

“Nebraska push for winner-take-all will wait in line after property tax relief”

Nebraska Examiner:

LINCOLN — Nebraska Republicans who want to change how the state awards its Electoral College votes before the presidential election this fall will have to wait a little longer.

Gov. Jim Pillen’s office confirmed Monday that his written call for this week’s special session will focus on property taxes alone and won’t include winner-take-all.

Pillen spokeswoman Laura Strimple said the governor has not shut the door on perhaps calling a special session later this year to consider awarding all five of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the winner of the presidential popular vote statewide. This year that likely would be former President Donald Trump in this Republican-dominated state.

Share this:

“Election law violates rights of voters with disabilities in Ohio, judge rules”

The Hill:

A federal judge in Ohio struck down parts of Ohio’s 2023 election law changes, ruling on Monday the law violates the rights of voters with disabilities in the state. . . 

The law, which went into effect April 2023, barred anyone who is not an election official or mail carrier from possessing or returning the absentee ballot for voters with disabilities, with the exception of [qualifying] family members.

Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan, in a ruling Monday, pointed to Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, stating it allows a disabled voter “to select a person of their choice to assist them with voting,” including the return of a ballot.

Share this:

“Can Robert Menendez’s Bribery Conviction Survive an Appeal?”

NYT:

After Senator Robert Menendez was found guilty of bribery and corruption charges, his lawyers said they would appeal his conviction aggressively and expected that he would be vindicated.

Defense lawyers make such claims routinely, but in the realm of federal corruption cases, there has been some reason to be optimistic. The U.S. Supreme Court, in rulings since 2010, has narrowed the legal definition of corruption, resulting in a number of convictions of political figures in New York and elsewhere being overturned.

Share this: