“Lawsuit challenges new proof of citizenship requirement at Ohio BMV for voter registration”

Uncategorized

Ohio Journal:

The women’s political organization Red Wine and Blue has sued Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose over changes to the voter registration process at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

Thanks to the federal “motor voter” law, car registration agencies around the U.S. have offered voter registration services to applicants since the early 1990s. New state law in Ohio requires applicants provide proof of citizenship before the bureau registers them or updates their registration.

Red Wine and Blue argued the change, passed as part of Ohio’s two-year transportation budget, “makes it harder for lawful, eligible Ohio citizens to exercise their fundamental right to vote.”

“Frank LaRose and Republicans in the state legislature should not be able to disenfranchise anyone,” she continued. “Especially not the rural Ohioans, elderly voters, students, and women who have changed their legal names through marriage and divorce who are disproportionately affected by this legislation.”

In a press release LaRose dismissed the case as a “baseless” and “activist” lawsuit. He added the state of Wyoming instituted similar changes and courts there have already upheld the policy.

“It’s common sense that only U.S. citizens should be on our voter rolls,” LaRose said. “I won’t apologize for, or back down from the work we do to ensure the integrity of our voter rolls.”

“We will win this case,” he insisted, “just like we’ve fought off the other baseless actions that such groups have brought against us.”

At root, the changes shift the burden from state agencies to individuals.

Under prior law, registrants had to attest under penalty of perjury that they are a citizen. Verification then happened behind the scenes with elections officials at the state and local level.

Share this:

“Abbott Signs Gerrymandered Map as Texas G.O.P. Moves Further Right”

redistricting

NYT:

Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas signed into law on Friday a newly gerrymandered map for Texas’ U.S. House districts, openly declaring that the state’s congressional delegation would soon be more Republican.

The redistricting push has triggered a scramble in other states, controlled by Democrats and Republicans, to redraw their U.S. House maps ahead of the 2026 midterms, as President Trump pushes to maintain control of Congress with methods far outside the political norm. Democrats such as Gov. Gavin Newsom of California have tried to counter in a fight that appears to be accelerating.

Mr. Abbott’s signing, announced in a video posted to social media, came nearly a week after the legislation passed the Texas Legislature. And it punctuated a special legislative session in which Republican lawmakers battled with Democrats over redistricting and, once the map was passed, quickly pushed through a raft of other hard-right bills.

Mr. Abbott said that the map, which redraws congressional districts to flip five seats currently held by Democrats, would ensure “fairer representation in the United States Congress.” In signing the legislation, he referred to it by the name favored by President Trump — “the One Big Beautiful Map” — who had been pushing for Texas to conduct the rare mid-decade redistricting since the spring…

Share this:

“A conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court justice won’t run again, creating an open seat”

judicial elections

Scott Bauer for AP:

A conservative justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court said Friday that she will not seek reelection, creating an open race for a seat on the court that’s controlled 4-3 by liberals.

Justice Rebecca Bradley’s decision not to run for a second full term comes after conservative candidates for the highest court in the battleground state have lost each of the past two elections by double-digit margins. Both of those races broke national spending records and the liberal won in April despite heavy spending by billionaire Elon Musk.

Liberal state Supreme Court candidates have won four of the past five races, resulting in them taking over the majority in 2023, breaking a 15-year run of conservative control. Regardless of who wins the April election, liberals will maintain their 4-3 court majority until at least 2028. If they can win next year, their majority would increase to 5-2….

Share this:

The Elections Clause and Campaigns

Uncategorized

Brad Smith, former FEC Commissioner and (retired) professor of law at Capital University, has long been one of the major advocates for the view that much of campaign-finance regulation violates the First Amendment. In an amicus brief in the NRSC v. FEC case on party-coordinated expenditures, the Institute for Free Speech, which Brad founded and chairs, along with the Manhattan Institute, now takes the position that the Elections Clause, which is the source of Congress’ power to regulate campaign finance, does not permit Congress to regulate political campaigns at all, as opposed to the voting process itself.

The Elections Clause, located in Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, states that “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators”. Brad argues that the “time, place, and manner of holding Elections” does not include the campaign process.

I want to point some of the consequences, were this position to be accepted. Because states only have power to regulate national elections through the Elections Clause, this position would mean no government would be able to regulate the campaign process for federal elections. It would seem to mean that even congressional regulation that requires disclosure of the source of large (or any) campaign contributions would be unconstitutional. Legislatures could not ban or regulate direct contributions of unlimited amounts from the general treasury of corporations or unions (current federal law bans those contributions in federal campaigns).

I don’t think there’s much the chance the Court would endorse this position. But it’s worth considering the consequences were the Court to do so.

Share this:

“Trump and Democrats Float Unusual Midterm Conventions”

political parties

NYT:

President Trump suggested on Thursday that the Republican Party should host an unusual national convention ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

“I am thinking of recommending a National Convention to the Republican Party, just prior to the Midterms. It has never been done before,” Mr. Trump wrote on his social media site, Truth Social. “STAY TUNED!!!”

Normally, both the Democratic and Republican parties hold their conventions every four years to formally nominate their presidential candidates. But Mr. Trump’s political operation is hoping to find ways to motivate the voters who have previously come out to cast ballots only when his name is on the ballot next year, when control of both the House and Senate will be determined for the second half of his second term.

A day earlier, Axios reported that Ken Martin, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, had been discussing a possible Democratic convention in 2026. The idea was the subject of some conversation on the sidelines of the D.N.C. meeting this week in Minneapolis, though it was not universally embraced, partly because it would most likely be costly for a party that is already stretched for cash.

The potential for a Democratic midterms convention was also covered on Wednesday evening by Sean Hannity on his show on Fox News, which is one of Mr. Trump’s favorite programs.

“Several options are on the table for next year, including hosting a large-scale gathering before the midterms,” said Abhi Rahman, a spokesman for the D.N.C., calling it a chance to “showcase our tremendous candidates running up and down the ballot.”

Democrats have scored a number of victories in low-turnout special elections this year. But they are working to impress upon their voters the importance of the midterms next year to give the party a check on Mr. Trump, who has moved aggressively to enact his agenda in Washington.

If the dueling conventions happen — which remains very much an if for both parties — the events would serve not just as a venue to campaign for the midterms but also a major platform for ambitious politicians hoping to lead both parties in 2028….

Share this:

“Emil Bove Continued to Work at Justice Dept. After Judicial Confirmation”

conflict of interest laws, Department of Justice

NYT:

Emil Bove III, a senior Trump administration official, was narrowly confirmed last month to serve as an appeals court judge, brushing past a bitter confirmation fight despite concerns that he would carry out the president’s directives while on the federal bench.

Still, Mr. Bove has continued to work at the Justice Department, appearing just last week at a department event to celebrate the crime-fighting takeover of the Washington police, according to video of the gathering. It was just one instance of Mr. Bove’s presence at the department, where he has also attended meetings, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the department’s inner workings.

The code of conduct for federal judges does not appear to apply to Mr. Bove, who court records show has yet to be sworn in. But the fact that he has remained at the Justice Department has raised eyebrows. Some legal experts said that working for the administration after being confirmed could undermine faith in the court system. Others expressed worry that Mr. Bove could expose himself to potential conflicts, advising Justice Department officials on matters that may eventually land before him as a federal judge.

“What the rules protect is public trust and confidence in the independence of the judiciary, which is of great value to the country, whether or not there is anything else that is untoward,” said Stephen Gillers, an expert on legal ethics at New York University’s law school. “Socializing with Trump is fine. Advising Trump is not fine. Putting himself physically in a place where it looks like he is identifying with the president’s political agenda is not fine.”…

Share this:

With Louisiana Essentially Flipping Sides in Callais Case Before Supreme Court and Arguing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is Unconstitutional, Full Defense Shifts to Voting Rights Groups

Supreme Court, Voting Rights Act
As noted yesterday, Louisiana essentially flipped sides in the Lousiana v. Callais case. In an earlier brief, Louisiana argued that its congressional districts were not a racial gerrymander because politics, rather than race, predominated in drawing district lines. Now… Continue reading