"Obama gains more ground in Texas conventions"

The Houston Chronicle offers this report.

"Texas Prosecutes Little Old Ladies for Voter Fraud"

AlterNet offers this report.

"Break Provides No Breakthrough on FEC Standoff"

Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center has written this Roll Call oped. A snippet:

There are those in Washington who want to spin the story by saying the reform community is glad to see the FEC ground to a halt. That is simply untrue. If the FEC was such a high priority for the White House and the Minority Leader, a replacement for former Chairman (and Republican) Michael Toner would have been named months ago. Toner left the commission to enter a private law practice in March 2007, but no one has even been nominated for his slot.

Yes, the FEC is fatally flawed and should be reshaped along the lines of legislation pending in the current Congress to keep it from continuing to be the handmaiden to the two parties. It is a maddeningly ineffective and weak agency whose sins of omission even outpace its sins of commission. It is frustrating to see laws duly passed by Congress and signed into law by the president undermined by appointees whose loyalties to party and ideology override their fealty to constitutional duty and faithful interpretation of the intent of the law.

But having no functioning FEC is not the right answer and is certainly not tenable in the long run. Rather, it is a temporary state created by politicians who are more interested in power politics and partisan advantage than in assuring faithful execution of the law of the land, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that law.

I am starting to think we don't get an FEC back until after the election.

"AAPC Launches Fundraising Appeal to Fight Robocall Bills"

Politics Magazine offers this report, which begins: "The American Association of Political Consultants is stepping up its fight against a slate of bills currently before Congress that aim to regulate political robocalls. The AAPC's 'First Amendment Legal Defense Fund' has sent out an appeal for donations to thousands of consultants to help fund what it anticipates could be a long legal fight."

"Congress Examines States' Failure to Follow National Voter Registration Act"

Project Vote has issued this release.

Of Millionaires and Political Parties

Bob Bauer's latest.

Supreme Court Refuses to Hear U.S. Gov't Appeal on Rep. Jefferson Office Search

See here. The government had claimed the ruling under the Speech or Debate Clause made lawmakers invulnerable to prosecution for corruption.

The Court also agreed to hear a case involving an Idaho law on political dues. Lyle Denniston explains: "The other granted case, Ysura v. Pocatello Education Association (07-869), tests a Ninth Circuit Court ruling that the First Amendment bars the Idaho legislature from denying payroll deductions by local governments for political activities. The Idaho law at issue barred payroll deductions to pay for political activities by labor unions. The law was challenged by labor unions representing workers for school districts, cities and counties in Idaho."

Return of the Money Primary?

The Politico offers Cash Strapped Clinton Fails to Pay Bills.

"Justice Dept. Staff Cleared in Election Report Inquiry"

The Washington Post offers this report.

Democratic Delegate Fights Get Nasty

See this LA Times report and this report from Hildago County, TX. About the Texas mess, the Washington Post concludes: "no other state could make democracy look so impossibly difficult and protracted."

"McCain's commitment to public financing questioned"

The Boston Globe offers this report.

von Spakovsky Speaks on Litigating Elections in Los Angeles

Details here. Unfortunately, I teach that day and won't be able to attend. Maybe Brad Friedman will want to drop in?

" Washington Republican Party Takes New Legal Action to Invalidate 'Top Two'"

Richard Winger has the news.

Richard also wrote me to take me to task for a line in my recent Findlaw column in which I said that the plaintiff in the Burdick case wanted to cast a write-in vote for Donald Duck. Richard pointed out that the Donald Duck argument came up in oral argument from the amicus, and that Burdick had a much more serious claim than that. Fair point.

Another Amicus Brief in FEC v. Davis case

Joel Gora alerted me to this amicus brief supporting Davis filed by Kathleen Sullivan and the Stanford Center. Well worth reading.

"Efforts to recall legislators show mixed results nationwide"

Joshua Spivak has written this piece for the San Jose Mercury News.

"McCain's campaign finance reform may haunt him "

Opinion from Bill O'Rielly.

Voter ID Coming to Kansas?

Looks like it, despite the fact that "the secretary of state's office has said there are no cases in Kansas of voter fraud that would have been prevented by showing a photo ID."

Isn't this the Kind of Thing You Check Before You Start a Recall Effort?

See No NRS provision to recall Senators, Congressman.

"Obama Rewriting Rules for Raising Money Online"

The Washington Post offers this report.

The Full Kousser

Following up on this post, Morgan Kousser tells me that the abstract I found on the Texas Law Review website was written by the law review, and not him. Here is his full abstract:

Strange events and ironic conjunctions pervade the narrative of the renewal of provisions of the Voting Rights Act in 2005-06. Never has the radical, still-controversial Act been treated in such hushed, reverential tones, and never has its discussion been so blatantly manipulated for immediate partisan advantage. Never have there been so many proposals for comprehensive changes when the temporary parts of the Act have come up for renewal, and never has there been less serious debate about the Act in committees and on the floor of Congress. Never has support for the Act in Congress and the country seemed so universal, and never has its constitutional future before the Supreme Court seemed so tenuous.
This Article shows that the strange, ironic nature of the recent consideration of the Voting Rights Act is not unusual, but rather, that it is typical of the history of the most controversial provision of the Act, Section 5, which requires that all changes in election laws in “covered jurisdictions,” chiefly in the Deep South, be submitted to the Justice Department or the District of Columbia District Court, for “pre-clearance” before they are allowed to go into effect. In its early years, Section 5 was largely ignored by state and local governments, and the Justice Department was too disorganized to police it, anyway. After receiving a judicial blessing from the Supreme Court, Section 5 was for the first time vigorously enforced by the Nixon Administration, which had opposed its effective continuation, and the Carter Administration, the first administration headed by a president from the Deep South since before the Civil War. Two Supreme Court decisions in 1976 and 1980 that threatened to sap the Act’s vigor instead stimulated civil rights activists to mount a campaign for Amendments that overwhelmed the Reagan Administration and led to the largest increase in minority elected officials since the first years of the post-Civil War Reconstruction. But no sooner had the promise of the Act finally been fulfilled than the Supreme Court, through strained interpretations of the Act’s intentions and even more ironically, by using the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to hamper, instead of to protect minority political rights, stripped the Act of much of its power. By 2006, the Act’s iconic status insured its persistence, but the fears of its staunchest proponents and the barely hidden antipathy of many members of the dominant political party prevented amendments that might have increased its chances to pass muster with the Roberts Court. Eight days after President George W. Bush signed the law, Gregory Coleman, a Texas lawyer with strong ties to the Republican party, filed a serious challenge to the constitutionality of Section 5. The strange career continues.
Analyzing the complete history of Section 5 and emphasizing the story’s ironic elements and shifting course yields lessons that may be useful in the continuing struggle to protect the political rights of minorities.

Reform Organizations File Brief in Millionaire's Amendment Case

See here. See also this CQ report.

A Statistical Solution to the Clinton-Obama Michigan-Florida Standoff?

See here.

"Senator calls for sweeping election overhaul"

CNN offers this report.

"Group sues W.Va. over campaign disclosure rules"

AP offers this report, which begins: "A conservative think tank wants to run television and radio ads targeting West Virginia's upcoming Supreme Court elections, but doesn't want to disclose how much it spends or who is footing the bill."

"Clinton Warns Donors on Superdelegates"

The NY Times offers this report.

Should Sen. McCain Break the FEC Impasse?

That's the suggestion of the WaPo editorial board. Bob Bauer comments.

"No Re-vote in Michigan, Ever?"

Marc Ambinder has the analysis.

Morgan Kousser on VRA Renewal

Morgan Kousser has published a lengthy and important article on Voting Rights Act Renewal in the Texas Law Review. It is The Strange, Ironic Career of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 1965-2007. Here is the abstract:

In this Article, Professor Kousser takes the recent renewal of various provisions of the Voting Rights Act as an invitation to reflect on the history of Section Five of this politically transformative legislation. Although the Voting Rights Act currently enjoys overwhelming popular and legislative support, the rushed renewal of expiring provisions of the Act in 2005 and 2006 became a political minefield where partisan interests sowed the dragon's teeth of the Act's demise even as they extended provisions of the Act by twenty-five years. The much-heralded renewal merely restored Section Five of the Act to its 'damaged pre-2000' state, and tactics were employed to all but invite the Supreme Court to declare the Act unconstitutional under the Court's reinvigorated federalism concerns. By delving into the history of Section Five of this Act, Professor Kousser reveals that the present confusions reflected in the "renewal saga" were not anomalous outcomes of unique circumstances but instead accurately reflect a history that is filled with irony and unintended consequences. This historical study illuminates the fragility of the Voting Rights Act and the ease with which political apathy and antagonistic judicial pronouncements can frustrate progress towards racial equality in voting and democratic representation.

"Judge Rules in Primary Records Case"

AP offers this report, which begins: "A federal judge on Wednesday struck down a Michigan law that allowed only the Republican and Democratic parties access to voter information from the state's Jan. 15 presidential primary." Mark Ambinder calls the ruling "a small political victory for Clinton and a larger one for Obama."

"Primary problem: Some Houstonians voted twice"

See this news from Texas.

"About Face: The Roberts Court Sets the Stage for Shrinking Voting Rights, Putting Poor and Minority Voters Especially In Danger"

I've written this new column for Findlaw. It begins:

Last Tuesday, the Supreme Court press focused on oral arguments over the constitutionality of the DC gun ban. But the same day the Court also issued a barely-noticed, but quite significant election law opinion. The opinion, unfortunately, could lay the groundwork for upholding a host of draconian laws making it harder for some people to vote.

Granted, the result in Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party is a good one: Voters will have more choice over the kinds of primaries they want in their states. However, the reasoning by which the Court got to that result is very troubling. Indeed, it suggests that Chief Justice Roberts may be following a long-term strategy that could have terrible implications for voting rights, especially for poor and minority voters.

"The Campaign Monitor Goes Missing"

The NY Times offers this editorial. Maybe I should go to this event and ask Hans if he intends to remain a nominee for the FEC.

"That Pesky Pledged Delegate Question"

The Washington Post asks: "Is the Clinton campaign planning to pursue pledged delegates - the ones awarded to Sen. Barack Obama in states that have already voted?"

"Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner doubts prosecution of crossover voting"

So reports the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

"Obama Declines to Check Box for Public Financing"

Political Wire links to this Politico piece.

"Editorial: IRV fails to improve how we hold elections"

The Burlington Free Press offers this editorial. And it looks like the bill may be vetoed.

"Electronic voting still not a sure thing in NJ"

AP offers this report.

"Senate bill seeks to ease vote caging"

The Politico offers this report.

"Vermont Poised to Adopt Instant Runoff Voting "

The CLC Blog offers this report.

Talking about the Legality of Crossover Voting in Ohio

on MSNBC's Dan Abrams show, tonight at 6:30 eastern (subject to change, as always with tv). [UPDATE: You can now watch the segment by clicking on "Rush Encouraging Voter Fraud?" on the Abrams page.)

"MVC to push NJ voter registration to comply with 1993 law"

AP offers this report.

"Rezko Trial Highlights Need for Basic Campaign Finance Reform"

This item appears at the Brennan Center blog.

John Yoo on Superdelegates

See this WSJ oped [corrected link].

"Michigan, Florida, and the L-Word"

Alex Keyssar has this interesting post at the Huffington Post.

Law Review Symposium on the Colorado Initiative

Volume 78, No. 4 of the University of Colorado Law Review has a symposium on the Colorado Initiative process, with the following contributions (the issue does not yet appear online at the law review's website):
# THE VOICE OF THE CROWD--COLORADO'S INITIATIVE
# Foreword
Richard B. Collins
p.1337
# Ennobling Direct Democracy
Sherman J. Clark
p.1341
# The Educative Effects of Direct Democracy: A Research Primer for Legal Scholars
Daniel A. Smith, Caroline J. Tolbert, & Daniel C. Bowen
p.1371
# Representation and the Spatial Bias of Direct Democracy
Daniel A. Smith
p.1395
# When Good Voters Make Bad Policies: Assessing and Improving the Deliberative Quality of Initiative Elections
John Gastil, Justin Reedy, & Chris Wells
p.1435
# The Citizen Assembly: An Alternative to the Initiative
Kevin O'Leary
p.1489
# Initiatives, Referenda, and the Problem of Democratic Inclusion: A Reply to John Gastil and Kevin O'Leary
Michaele L. Ferguson

"Unreliable Voting in New Jersey"

The NY Times offers this editorial.

Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Citizens United Appeal

I had been predicting that the Court would not hear the Citizens United appeal, arising out of tv advertisements for an anti-Hillary Clinton movie. Today the Court dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction, after asking for briefing on the question whether the jurisdictional statute allows a direct appeal to the Supreme Court for a non-final challenge to a provision of BCRA. Justice Breyer would have summarily affirmed.

I believe the time has expired for Citizens United to have appealed the denial of their request for a preliminary injunction to the DC Circuit. It is possible that the case will continue, with Citizens United pushing for a final judgment on the merits and then coming back to the Supreme Court for a ruling.

"For Interest Groups, Cash Talks"

Eliza Newlin Carney's latest Rules of the Game column is now available.

Riley v. Kennedy Oral Argument Today at the Supreme Court

Details here. Pam Karlan will be arguing.

March Madness

Clinton supporter Evan Bayh as suggested that Democratic superdelegates "consider the electoral votes of the states" Sens. Clinton and Obama have won in deciding how to vote. Why not just use the results of the NCAA Men's Basketball tournament?

Is the Media's Pursuit of Horserace Coverage the Reason Sen. Clinton is Still Considered a Viable Contender for the Democratic Presidential Nomination?

That's the provocative thesis of this article by Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen in The Politico. And at Slate, Christopher Beam gives a similar answer: "Today's the New York Times A1 piece on Hillary Clinton, 'Clinton Facing Narrower Path to Nomination,' is an exercise in understatement. It nudges the candidate ever closer to the cliff but, maybe because of politeness, or business savvy, or maybe even a perceived need for objectivity, refrains from pushing her over." See also Josh Marshall.

Now, with news of Clinton's campaign debt and an admission by her staffer that she has no more than a 10% chance of securing the nomination, expect these stories to proliferate.

Could it be that the media has kept the story alive? I think that's an overstatement. Of course Clinton can't catch Obama, but it is also true that Obama cannot formally clinch without the superdelegates. So long as Clinton has the hope of an Obama implosion or major gaffe, she has a reason to remain in the race. So don't blame the media; blame the DNC's system for leaving this in the hands of superdelegates---something the DNC surely must reconsider for 2012 and beyond.

Justice for Sale

James Sample has written this Wall Street Journal oped on judicial elections.

New Campaign Finance Instittute Report on Presidential Fundraising in February

In writing a piece for the Forum (out in a few weeks) about small donors in the 2008 presidential election, I've found the Campaign Finance Institute's analyses to be extremely valuable. Apparently I'm not alone. (See also here.)

Here is CFI's report on the February numbers.

"McCain Blows by Public Spending Cap"

See this post on a WaPo political blog.

New on the EAC Website

A study on Military and Civilian overseas voters and a statement about the IG's report.

"As Supreme Court mulls photo ID law, states consider similar bills"

Electionline Weekly offers this report.

"The Impact of FEC v. WRTL II on State Regulation"

The Brennan Center has posted this analysis.

SCOTUSBlog Preview of Riley v. Kennedy

This preview is of a Voting Rights Act section 5 case to be argued on Monday.

Speaking of Section 5, where in the world is the lower court opinion in NAMUDNO?

Eleventh Circuit Rejects Suit to Seat Florida Delegates

As I predicted, the 11th Circuit has rejected plaintiff's claims. More from Howard Bashman.

Washington Post Endorses Half-Nelson in Florida, Wants Revote in Michigan That Allows Anyone to Vote, Even if they Voted in Republican Primary

See here.

Two from the Politico

The website offers Can Clinton win popular vote, superdelegates?, which begins" :The apparent collapse of planned new votes in Florida and Michigan could push victory on a key symbolic measure -- the primary season popular vote -- beyond Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's grasp." It also offers McCain Moves Toward Public Financing.

"Michigan primary redo bill dies in Senate"

The Detroit News reports: "LANSING -- The state Senate adjourned this afternoon without taking up the Michigan primary redo bill, meaning the plan is dead. Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, said Democrats never reached agreement or crafted a viable bill that could be considered on the Senate floor. "

"A Do-Over Undone"

Don't miss this posting by Dan Balz over at one of the WaPo political blogs.

Toward the Half-Nelson in Florida?

See here.

"Veterans Administration Won't Help Soldiers Register to Vote"

AlterNet offers this report.

"Ohio seizes voting machines in criminal investigation"

See here.

"Clinton Presses Obama on Efforts For Revotes in Florida and Michigan"

The Washington Post offers this report. But it looks like the Michigan plan, like Florida, is now dead.

"Dan Walters: Court ruling offers hope to dysfunctional California politics"

See this Sacramento Bee column on the Washington primary decision.

"Faulty signatures knock Blackwell's son off ballot"

See this news from Philly.com.

"House snuffs voter ID bill, but some reforms still pending"

See this news from Mississippi.

"Cuyahoga County Board of Elections begins investigation of primary crossover voters"

The Cleveland Plain Dealer offers this report.

"Supreme Court Set to Discuss March 21 Whether to Review Citizens United Case"

BNA Money & Politics Report offers this report ($).

Three NYT Opeds on the Do-Over Possibility

All three--here, here and here--are worth reading.

"State ballot could pit two from same party"

The Seattle Times offers this report on yesterday's Supreme Court ruling in the Washington primary case. Howard Bashman has more links. Bob Bauer asks what happened behind the curtain to explain the result at the Supreme Court. I don't think it is that much of a mystery. The four dissenters in Jones joined with Justice Thomas, who from the Clingman case had expressed doubts about the associational right and strict scrutiny first set out in Tashjian, to reach this ruling. The hardest to peg is Chief Justice Roberts, and as I indicated yesterday, I thin his vote here setting forth the idea that facial challenges are disfavored, could well be used to uphold the Indiana voter id law in Crawford.

The Obama Campaign, Via Bob Bauer, on Election Administration Problems with a Michigan Redo

You can find Bob's memo here. His first point, on which voters would be eligible to vote in this primary, is similar to the point I made here.

"Clinton Tries to Keep Plan for Two Revotes Alive""

The NY Times offers this report. See also Clinton to Fly to Michigan to Push for Revote and AP's Some Democrats' Votes May be Banned. Is Senator Obama trying to run out the clock on this issue? I'm skeptical of the revote primarily on election administrability and fairness grounds.

"Former Hale circuit clerk charged in voter fraud probe"

AP on this alleged absentee ballot fraud.

"California and Ohio Secretaries of State Named 2008 JFK Profile in Courage Award"

See this press release.

"Federal Court Extension of Polling Hours: Problem, Proposal, Example"

Ned Foley's post at Moritz asks: "What circumstances justify federal court intervention on Election Day to provide more voting opportunities for some citizens than the state officials themselves would permit? If a federal court order is warranted, what sort of form and scope should that order take?"

In Shocker, Supreme Court on 7-2 Vote Upholds Washington State Primary

You can find the Court's opinion here. The Court, and particularly Justice Roberts, leaves open the possibility of an as-applied challenge to the law later upon proof that voters are actually confused by the designations of the candidates' party preferences on the ballot (thinking that this is really a party primary).

I must say that I am pleasantly shocked by this outcome from the point of view of the blanket primary, and think it will reinvigorate efforts to enact such a system in California. [Disclosure: I was on the legal team drafting a similar measure that appeared on the California ballot a few years ago.]

On the other hand, I am very troubled by the Court's discussion of facial challenges in election law, and especially what that's going to mean for the Indiana voter identificatiion case.

"Protecting the Right to Vote"

I'll be speaking in San Diego along with California Secretary of State Debra Bowen and (I think) Donna Frye on Thursday at 6 pm. Details here.

"Florida Dems Abandon Mail-In Vote Plan"

AP offers this report, which also notes that the 11th Circuit today was skeptical of arguments trying to force the DNC to seat delegates from the Florida primary. Meanwhile the Democrats are still fighting about Texas delegates and the Michigan plan.

"The Florida and Michigan Do-Overs and the Virtues of the 'Half-Nelson'"

I have written this post on The Huffington Post. It begins: "The more I think about how to handle the Democratic delegates from Michigan and Florida, the more I am convinced that a revote, especially in Florida, is the wrong way to go and that some kind of political compromise, such as seating the Florida delegates but giving them half a vote each, or splitting the delegates 50/50 between Sens. Clinton and Obama, is the best way to go. In this post, I first lay out my reasoning and then talk about how to get there."

"50% Rule Gets Its Day in the High Court"

Gerry Hebert has written this post on the grant of cert. in the Bartlett case.

"Disenfranchising Felons (or How William Rehnquist Earned His Stripes)"

Frank Askin has written this article (reposted with permission) for the Rutgers Law Review.

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear New Voting Rights Act Section 2 Case; Fails to Rule on Citizens United Appeal

The Supreme Court this morning granted cert in Bartlett v. Strickland. The question presented is "Whether a racial minority group that constitutes less than 50% of a proposed district's population can state a vote dilution claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act." The case will be heard next term. You can find links to the cert petition, opinion of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, and other cert-related documents here. The case will be heard next term.

No ruling today on the Citizens United appeal, despite a motion to expedite filed back in January.

"Legislation for Do-Over is in Limbo"

The Detroit News offers this report.

"Don't Go Postal"

John Fund and I agree about the Florida mail-in revote problems. (I don't get to write sentences that begin "John Fund and I agree" all that often!).

Ninth Circuit Denies Rehearing En Banc in Vote Trading Case

You can find Judge Kleinfeld's dissent (joined by two other judges) here. I don't know if the state will appeal to the Supreme Court. If the state does, I think there's a fair chance the Court would take the case (just because it is so intellectually interesting).
[Disclosure: I've given informal advice to the plaintiffs in this case.]

"Behind Closed Doors, Democrats Seek Answers"

John Harwood of the NYT has posted this analysis of the Michigan/Florida situation.

House of Lords Issues Interesting Decision Upholding Ban on Election-Related Advertising

Check out this decision in Animal Defenders International. Particularly interesting (as Keith Ewing pointed out to me) is Baroness Hale's opinion:

47. There was an elephant in the committee room, always there but never mentioned, when we heard this case. It was the dominance of advertising, not only in elections but also in the formation of political opinion, in the United States of America. Enormous sums are spent, and therefore have to be raised, at election times: it is estimated that the disputed 2000 elections for President and Congress cost as much as US$3 billion. Attempts to regulate campaign spending are struck down in the name of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law . . .
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”: see particularly Buckley v Valco, 424 US 1 (1976). A fortiori there is no limit to the amount that pressure groups can spend on getting their message across in the most powerful and pervasive media available.

48. In the United Kingdom, and elsewhere in Europe, we do not want our government or its policies to be decided by the highest spenders. Our democracy is based upon more than one person one vote. It is based on the view that each person has equal value. "Within the sphere of democratic politics, we confront each other as moral equals" (Ackerman and Ayres, Voting with Dollars, 2003, p 12). We want everyone to be able to make up their own minds on the important issues of the day. For this we need the free exchange of information and ideas. We have to
accept that some people have greater resources than others with which to put their views across. But we want to avoid the grosser distortions which unrestricted access to the broadcast media will bring. ...

The Latest on Michigan and Florida Do-Overs

The NY Times offers Delegate Battles Snarl Democrats in Two States and For Florida, Warnings of Complexity of Mail-In Voting. And the half-Nelson gains traction.

"June 3 Is Target for Michigan Do - Over"

AP offers this report.

Meanwhile, it looks like a half-Nelson for Florida.

Paying for Prostitution with Campaign Funds

The Brennan Center has this Gov. Spitzer related post.

Tova Wang Issues Comment on EAC IG Report

Tova Wang asked me to post the following:

While I have many issues with the way in which our work was characterized by the Inspector General in his report on the EAC study on fraud and intimidation, there is one clarification I would like to make. The "draft report" that we submitted to the EAC staff and then was released to the press was just that -- a "draft report." I NEVER expected that version to be a final report or that it would be released to the public. It clearly required editing and revision, a process I expected would be undertaken through a collaborative effort with myself, Job Serebrov, EAC staff and Commissioners, as I believe was the process followed with respect to other EAC consultant reports. That never happened. Instead, the EAC took the report,refused to let us have any further involvement, and edited and revised it into what they released as the final report.

I will have no further comment.

More on Political Pressure at the EAC on the Voter ID Report, and the Value of the IG Investigation (Not to Mention Another Reason for Hans von Spakovsky to Withdraw His FEC Nomination)

Gerry Hebert's must read post is here [corrected link]. BNA's Money and Politics Report offers this report ($) which begins "Paul DeGregorio, a Republican former commissioner of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, butted heads with Federal Election Commission nominee Hans von Spakovsky because, DeGregorio said, von Spakovsky wanted him to use his EAC position to 'advance the Republican Party's agenda,' according to a new inspector general's report."

"Do Dogs Vote in St. Louis? Senators Spar over the Need for Voters to Show Photo ID"

Project Vote has this post on its blog.

"Architect of Florida Mail-In Vote Says Its Chances Are Poor"

The NY Times offers this report. See also this Washington Post report.

Michael McDonald writes an analysis of the Florida mail in vote and racial disparities. It begins: "This analysis shows that African-Americans are more frequently affected by easily detectable address errors on the Florida voter registration file. The information should be carefully evaluated by the Department of Justice or District Court of Washington, DC when considering approval, as required under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, of any proposed all-mail balloting election in the state of Florida."

Via Ben Smith comes this analysis of how the various Florida and Michigan scenarios for resolving the delegate dispute would affect the delegate count of candidates.

A deal may be closer in Michigan.

Busier than Usual

I'm now on the committee taking care of this at Loyola. I wish it did not coincide with the 2008 election.

Florida Mail-in Do-Over Primary: "What do we have to lose?"

Marc Ambinder quotes a Democratic Party official asking what the party has to lose by holding a mail-in primary in Florida. Here are the top three risks:

1. An election meltdown. As I have noted,"there's something especially worrisome about rolling out a new system for counting votes for the first time in a presidential contest. It is like debuting your new play straight on Broadway." Dan Tokaji has raised similar and additional administrability concerns. A meltdown could well backfire on the Democrats, making Floridians less likely to vote for a Democrat in the fall, and tarnishing even further the reputation of Florida.

2. The specter of vote fraud. Any time voting takes place outside the voting booth, there is the chance of a vote buying arrangement. As I have explained, absentee ballot fraud was rampant enough for a court to void the Miami mayor's race of 1997. We can also expect that the loser of the contest will have an incentive to claim fraud as a way of trying to undermine the results, much like what may be happening with the Texas caucus right now.

3. Undermining the ability of the DNC to insure order on the primary process. It would be quite ironic if Florida, despite having broken the rules, would get to hold a final primary that the media (and perhaps the candidates) will bill as the decisive contest to sway the superdelegates (as in, whoever can win in Florida deserves to take on John McCain in November). What incentive will this create for states in 2012 asked to abide by the Democratic party rules for the timing of primaries and caucuses?

Now Democrats may decide to go forward with this contest anyway, if the alternative is seating the delegates from the earlier contests. As I've said, "Yes, we had a contest, but it was a contest run under unusual rules....Candidates were not allowed to campaign, and voters were told by the D.N.C. their votes wouldn't count. That kind of election doesn't comport with our usual democratic norms." The Democrats are in a tough spot, and I've become more convinced that the 50-50 delegate split makes the most sense.

The Latest on the Texas Caucus Mess

See here. CNN reports Obama will get more votes from the state than Clinton.

"Senate panel ponders election fraud again"

McClatchy offers this report.

"Florida's Mail-In Primary Plan Opens Rifts"

Political Wire offers this roundup. See also this Washington Post report and this NY Times report.

"Clinton and Obama Split Over Florida and Michigan"

This article will appear in tomorrow's NY Times.

"On the Causes and Consequences of and Remedies for Interstate Malapportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives"

This article appears in the latest Perspectives on Politics.

"Vote Buying or Turnout Buying? Machine Politics and the Secret Ballot"

This interesting article by Simeon Nichter appears in the latest APSR.

Links to Hearing Video, Statements, Testimony and Letters in Senate Rules Committee Hearing on Voter ID

Find it all here.

"Would Bush's Justice Department Have To OK New Florida, Michigan Mail Primaries?"

Mark Ambinder has this new post.

"Fashioning a Constitutional Voter-Identification Requirement"

Sam Langholz has written this student note for the Iowa Law Review.

The latest on the Citizens United Appeal to the Supreme Court

Analysis and links to the supplemental briefs from Lyle Denniston here.

EAC's Inspector General Report on Vote Fraud Investigation Released

You can find it here. It is a fascinating read, in which the cast of characters (once again) includes Hans von Spakovsky. The report found no evidence the report was changed for "political motivations," though there are plenty of allegations to that effect in the account of some of those interviewed for the report. It did say that the project was "poorly conceived and managed," and that it was "set to fail from the beginning."

"The Problems with All-Mail Elections"

Dan Tokaji has this important post on the Equal Vote blog.

"Fla. House Members Oppose Mail-In Vote"

The Washington Post offers this report. See also this NY Times report. And if another primary is held, there's the question of who pays and what is disclosed about who pays.

I've already expressed concerns about the administrability of a mail in vote. I wonder also about questions over preclearance (some counties in Florida are covered jurisdictions under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act) and about DNC approval (can't those who oppose vote by mail block it there)?

My preference: either split the delegates 50-50 or hold an election with paper ballots marked by hand at the polling places and counted by hand by elections officials.

Heavy Republican Cross-Over Voting in One Miss. County Yesterday

I wonder if this occurred across the state and if any of it is the Limbaugh effect.

"Two more voter fraud cases dismissed"

The latest from Hidalgo County, TX.

Bob Bauer on Jan Baran's New Campaign Finance Cert. Petition

This is one I hadn't been tracking but could prove interesting to the Court.

Von Spakovsky Back in Controversial Spotlight

Suppose you were recess appointed to the FEC and your appointment has expired as the Senate and the President have a standoff over your appointment. What to do in the meantime? You might try writing a non-controversial oped for a major newspaper on a pressing public financing issue.

Or, if you are Hans von Spakovksy, who has been accused of being too partisan, you might inject yourself directly in public controversy by publishing Stolen Identities, Stolen Votes: A Case Study of Voter Impersonation. If this means that von Spakovsky no longer expects to get his FEC position back, why doesn't he ask the president to withdraw the nomination, so that the FEC can be reconstituted with a quorum so that it can deal with pressing business, such as controversy over Sen. McCain's attempt to withdraw from public financing and controversy over ALP, the pro-Clinton 527?

I hope to have time to write about the merits of von Spakovksy's paper in the next few days. In the meantime, I expect that the Brennan Center will craft a response in short order.

"Testing the Limits Of Public Finance"

CQ Weekly offers this report.

"Fight for Texas delegates won't end anytime soon"

The Houston Chronicle offers this report, which begins: "A record-shattering 1 million Texans may have participated in last week's Democratic precinct caucuses, a state party spokesman said Monday. But the focus now is on March 29, when supporters of presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama will fight it out again in about 260 county and state senatorial district conventions. Based on the 41 percent of precincts whose caucus results were called in to state party headquarters, Obama has a projected 37-30 edge in caucus delegates. But that could change by the time Texas' Democratic delegates are officially apportioned at the state party convention June 5-7 in Austin."

"In-Person Voter Fraud: Myth and Trigger for Disenfranchisement?"

The Senate Rules Committee is currently holding this hearing. From the press release:

Serious questions have been raised about whether a photo ID requirement, when rigorously enforced without adequate alternatives, could prevent vulnerable voters from exercising their constitutionally guaranteed right to vote, one of the most essential rights in our democracy. In particular, concerns have been raised about the potential impacts on voters who have historically encountered obstacles at the polls -- disabled, poor, minority, and senior voters.

The hearing will also examine the evidence of charges about rampant impersonation of registered voters at the polls, which is the primary type of fraud that could be prevented by a strict photo identification requirement.

Despite a major effort by the Bush Administration to investigate charges of voter fraud, and after millions upon millions of voters cast ballots in 2002, 2004 and 2006, no federal cases of impersonation voter fraud have been successfully prosecuted.

More on a Possible Mail in Vote in Do-Over Florida Primary

Here's Sen. Bill Nelson advocating the idea; Here's Rob Richie discussing the Oregon vote-by-mail experience.

"Enough is Enough"

Bob Bauer on Justice Scalia on Bush v. Gore.

Does the National Popular Vote Plan Violate the Voting Rights Act?

So suggests this student note in the Columbia Law Review. That issue also contains Judging the Voting Rights Act, an article by Adam Cox and Thomas Miles that I read in draft form. Highly recommended!

"Uneven Match: The McCain case illustrates the need to update public campaign funding."

The Washington Post offers this editorial.

"Fla. Mail - In Primary Plan Gains Traction"

AP offers this report. I remain worried about the administrability of this option.

"Lawsuit Eyed by Sharpton Over Florida"

The NY Sun offers this report, which begins: "Laying the groundwork for a court battle that could divide the Democratic Party, the Reverend Al Sharpton is threatening to sue the Democratic National Committee if it counts Florida's primary results in the official presidential delegates tally. Rev. Sharpton is traveling to Florida today to compile lists of residents who skipped the January contest because they thought their votes would not count. He plans to have those residents sign affidavits saying they would be disenfranchised by the seating of the Florida delegation, in the event the Democratic Party allowed that to happen."

As I've noted here and here, I would not expect such a lawsuit to have any chance of success.

"A $3 Vote for Competitive Elections"

Bob Lenhard, the once (and perhaps future) chair of the FEC, has written this Washington Post oped. Bob Bauer comments.

"Suit aims to lift campaign-finance donor limits"

The Washington Times offers this report.

Justice Scalia Dusts Off His "Get Over It" Line About Bush v. Gore

Here.

"Worries About a Florida Primary Do-Over Through Vote By Mail"

I've written this post over at the Huffington Post. It begins: "There are strong reasons, both equitable and political, to do something about the current standoff over whether Florida's delegates to this summer's Democratic National Convention should be seated. But the idea currently floated by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) of conducting a 'do-over' via an all vote-by-mail primary makes me very concerned about the security and accuracy of such a vote. A far better option would be to award delegates 50-50 to Sens. Clinton and Obama."

"Crossover voting was heavy -- and maybe illegal"

The Cleveland Plain Dealer's political blog offers this post.

"Whitehouse Tackles 'Nefarious' Voter Caging. No, not that White House."

From the Project Vote blog.

"Uncounted Ballots & Ohio's Delegate Math"

Dan Tokaji's latest.

"U.N. Committee Urges U.S. to Reform Disenfranchisement Laws"

See here.

"Taking the Democratic Party to Court"

Here's my latest piece at Slate. It begins:

If you were a litigation-minded Clinton or Obama supporter, what might you be plotting? Bush v. Gore aside, the courts aren't prone to poking their noses into internal party politics, even when they get as messy and troubling as the Texas caucuses. Still, some lawyer somewhere will inevitably think about turning to the judiciary to resolve the tight race for the Democratic presidential nomination or, at least, to limit some campaign tactics that could affect the outcome. There is no reason to think that judges are better situated than voters or party leaders to decide who should face John McCain in November. But here are the three most likely legal claims, along with why they probably won't--and shouldn't--succeed.

"Party Donations Show GOP Edge"

The NY Times offers this report.

Can the State Democratic Primaries Raise Unlimited Funds to Pay for a Do-Over Primary in Florida, or a Caucus in Michigan?

That's the suggestion here and here (on a possible vote by mail only primary in Florida).

I haven't examined this issue myself.

"Voter fraud: Dozens allegedly lied about addresses in Daggett sheriff's election"

The Salt Lake Tribune offers this report.

"Citizens' Groups and Computer Experts Join NJ Election Administrator's and Congressman's Call to Investigate Troubled Voting Machines"

Voter Action has issued this press release.

Voter Purge in Mississippi

See here and here.

Yet Another Fine Example of Bipartisan Deliberation Over the Wisdom of Voter Identification Laws

This time in Wisconsin.

SpeechNow Slapdown on Amicus Question

Court order:

Before the Court is the motion of Democracy 21 and Campaign Legal Center for leave to file a memorandum as amici curiae [10]. Plaintiff Speechnow.org, representing and urging a completely unrestricted, libertarian approach to campaign financing in the name of free speech, opposes the motion, arguing, apparently without any sense of irony, that the speech of amici should not be heard -- now. Electronic case filing provides a very big tent for amici. The filing of a memorandum amicus curiae prejudices nobody and obligates no party to respond. The motion is granted.

"Obama raises $55 million in month; Clinton reports surge in funds"

The LA Times offers this news update.

"A Possibly Super Problem"

Michael Tomasky has written this article on the superdelegate issue for the NY Review of Books.

"Court Redux: Is McCain Ineligible to Be President?"

Jonathan Turley has written this Roll Call oped ($).

"Unexpected Turnout Seen as Big Factor in Texas Democratic Caucus Complaints"

The Dallas Morning News offers this report.

"Turnout, Technology and Nature Marred Balloting in Ohio"

The NY Times offers this report.

"F.B.I. Investigates Missing G.O.P. Money"

The NY Times offers this report.

"CLC Files Amicus in SpeechNow.org 527 Case"

Details here. SpeechNow has opposed CLC/Democracy 21's participation.

"Unjustified Federal Court Extension of Polling Hours"

Check out Ned Foley's recent post, which begins: "Late--very late--yesterday, the Obama campaign sought and received an order from a federal court to extend polling hours in certain precincts in Cuyahoga County for 1.5 hours beyond their regularly scheduled closing time (of 7:30pm). Both the request and the granting of it are troubling developments, not just for the rest of this now-extended primary campaign, but also for the general election in November." UPDATE: Bob Bauer responds.

"A Clean, Fair Fight"

The NY Times offers this editorial, which begins: "If recent history is any guide, this fall’s presidential election will be marred by vote suppression and cynical dirty tricks. Congress still has time to stop some of the worst offenses. The Senate is considering two bills, one to outlaw so-called vote caging and another to rein in duplicitous robo-calls. Congress should pass both bills well before Election Day."

In Case That Could Well Be Taken Up by the Supreme Court, Sixth Circuit Rejects Rule Limiting Basis for Payments to Initiative Circulators

Via How Appealing, comes link to this unanimous sixth Circuit opinion in Citizens for Tax Reform v. Deters. In holding that an Ohio law barring the payment to initiative circulators on anything other than a time-worked basis violates the First Amendment, the case puts the Sixth Circuit at odds with similar laws upheld against First Amendment challenge in the Second, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits. To be sure, the Sixth Circuit tries to distinguish these cases, but in my view either they are all unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment or none of them are.

I suspect that if my friend Bill Marshall (now Solicitor General of Ohio) petitions for cert., he's likely to get the Court to hear the case. He may not win at the Court, but I think this is just the kind of election law case the Justices like to consider.

"Some Who Fight for McCain Are Fighting Against McCain-Feingold"

The Washington Post offers this report.

"Investigation Launched into Vote Stealing"

More trouble with absentee ballots, this time in Houston.

Where is the hue and cry from supporters of voter identification laws to bar the use of absentee ballots on the basis that there has been proven fraud with such ballots?

"EAC Will Award Grants to Recruit the Next Generation of Poll Workers"

See this press release.

"Don't Call Ohio Too Soon"

Dan Tokaji's latest.

"McCain campaign funding under fire"

The Arizona Republic offers this report.

"Political Calculus to Affect Funding"

The Herald-Leader offers this report, which begins: "Get the calculators out. Anyone interested in following the U.S. Senate race in Kentucky will need them. With two wealthy candidates running in the Democratic primary, it's possible that a complex federal campaign-finance provision called the Millionaires" Amendment could come into play for the first time in Kentucky." That's assuming the Supreme Court doesn't strike it down first.

"Sec. of State pushes to further restrict felons' voting rights"

See this news from Mississippi.

Bauer Responds to Hoersting on Bob's Views on 527s

Following up on this post, see here.

"Natural Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility"

The Yale Law Journal has posted here Jill Pryor's 1988 note on this topic, which was mentioned in connection with John McCain's candidacy in this NY Times article.

"Natural Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility Clause"

The Yale Law Journal has posted here Jill Pryor's 1988 note on this topic, which was mentioned in connection with John McCain's candidacy in this NY Times article.

"Ohio's Primary: What Will Go Wrong?"

Dan Tokaji has this must read post on his Equal Vote blog. Here is a snippet: "It appears that Secretary of State Brunner is behind the decision to oust [Franklin County election director Matt] Damschroder. Damschroder has been a leader among county election officials in criticizing some of Brunner's decisions, and was subpoenaed to testify in support of the ACLU's lawsuit challenging Cuyahoga County's decision. If in fact Brunner has moved to remove Damschroder because of his testimony in the ACLU case, as this story suggests, that would be a terrible abuse of the Secretary of State's authority -- one that would give justification to Republican complaints about her, comparable to Democrats' justifiable complaints about Blackwell in 2004."

Pro-Clinton 527 Starts Spending

See here.

"No End in Sight for FEC Nominees Stalemate"

Roll Call offers this report ($).

"Voter Lists Raise Concern"

AP offers this report, which begins: "Welcome to the first presidential election in which nearly every state must have a list of every registered voter. Here's the catch: If your name isn't on it, you may have trouble casting a ballot in this historic race for the White House."

"Flip Flopping on Public Financing"

The LA Times offers this report.

Interesting Timing for Removal of Ohio Elections Official

See here.

CSU Center for Election Integrity Releases "Judging Cuyahoga and Ohio Electoral Success"

See here.

Steve Hoersting on Regulating the Pro-Clinton 527

See here and here.

Bauer on Smith on the FEC Showdown

See here.

"McCain and the Oath; He has not been bashful about advising the Supreme Court. He should weigh in again, against aspects of McCain-Feingold."

George Will's latest Newsweek column.

"Are We Ready for Ohio's Primary?"

See this post on a Cleveland Plain Dealer blog.

The Hartford Courant Likes the National Popular Vote Plan

See here.

"Agencies Slip in Registering the Poor to Vote"

The Las Vegas Sun offers this report. See also this editorial.

"In Alabama, a Fight to Regain Voting Rights Some Felons Never Lost"

The NY Times offers this report.

Milwaukee Police Report Controversy

Following up on this post, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel offers Report's Stealthy Release Irks Police Chief. See also this post by the Brew City Brawler. Demos has issued this press release.

"Diebold Receives Takeover Offer"

The NY Times offers this report.

Congressional Candidate Allegedly Lies About Whether He Voted in Past Elections

See here.

Sen Gravel Loses Ohio Case to Stop Pro-Clinton 527 Group

You can find the opinion from a federal district court in Ohio here. The judge's conclusion: start at the FEC, and if you don't get relief there (because of the FEC's lack of a quorum), then it may be time to go to federal court. Words Sen. McCain's lawyers might heed.