CMD on Wyoming Voting Restriction Efforts

Center for Media and Democracy:

A right-wing think tank in Florida put its thumb on the scales of Wyoming’s election reform efforts, an investigation by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) reveals.

Emails obtained by CMD show that the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA), based in Naples, Florida, has had extensive communication with Wyoming’s secretary of state in its pursuit of severely curtailing voting access across the country.

Share this:

Breaking: Sen. Menendez Convicted of Bribery and Acting as Foreign Agent

AP:

 U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez was convicted on Tuesday on all counts at his corruption trial, including accepting bribes of gold and cash from three New Jersey businessmen and acting as a foreign agent for the Egyptian government.

Prosecutors said the Democrat abused the power of his office to protect allies from criminal investigations and enrich associates, including his wife, through acts that included meeting with Egyptian intelligence officials and helping that country access millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

Share this:

“Inside the private pressure campaign to force hand-counting of Arizona ballots”

Votebeat:

Republican lawmakers in Arizona privately pressured county leaders across the state to count ballots by hand instead of using machines, according to previously unreported text messages.

The messages, obtained by Votebeat through public record requests, are a window into how state lawmakers are trying to leverage relationships with Republican county supervisors — who decide how to count ballots in their counties — to promote a practice that state officials have repeatedly said would be illegal.

And it highlights how lawmakers have turned to counties to try to change how ballots are counted, after failing to change state laws.

Share this:

ProPublica Report on Judicial Recusal

Released today:

A ProPublica analysis found a lack of transparency regarding conflicts plagues federal and state courts where loose rules, inconsistent enforcement and creative interpretations of guidelines routinely allow judges to withhold potential conflicts from the parties before them.

In an examination of more than 1,200 federal judges and state supreme court justices, ProPublica, in partnership with student journalists at Boston University, found dozens of judges, including both Republican and Democratic appointees, who chose not to recuse when facing potential appearances of impropriety involving familial financial connections. Ethics experts say that the judges’ interpretation of the rules may often lie within the letter of the law, but at the expense of its spirit.

Share this: