“Military voters as political pawns”

I have written this cover piece for the Sunday San Diego Union-Tribune opinion section. It begins:

It’s the election season, and the battle for the presidency and control of Congress is being fought not just through voter registration drives, endless campaign ads, and stadium rallies, but also in courts across America. Litigation over election rules has become increasingly commonplace since the disputed 2000 election in Florida, which led to the United States Supreme Court choosing George W. Bush over Al Gore. And as in 2000, the question of military voters and military ballots is back in the media and legal spotlight, with Republicans unfairly accusing Democrats of being anti-military.

A federal district court in Ohio will soon decide the Obama campaign’s challenge to an unusual Ohio law. The law allows military voters and overseas voters, but no other voters, the right to cast an in-person ballot in the three days before Election Day. Democrats argue that this law is unconstitutional because it “requires election officials to turn most Ohio voters, including veterans, firefighters, police officers, nurses, small business owners and countless other citizens, away from open voting locations, while admitting military and nonmilitary overseas voters and their families who are physically present in Ohio and able to vote in person.”

Another snippet:

The claim that Democrats were trying to undermine the military vote was especially ironic. The only significant federal election legislation to pass out of Congress since 2002 was the MOVE Act, a bill championed by Democrats to extend military voting rights. Overseas military voter turnout is abysmal, and the MOVE Act was a small step in the right direction by requiring states to get ballots to military voters on time. Still, Republicans have repeatedly criticized the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice for not implementing the MOVE Act aggressively enough against states which have sought waivers from its provisions.

Perhaps the Democrats are willing to fight about military ballots this time because of how they got burned in the Florida 2000 dispute. As I detail in my new book, “The Voting Wars,”; during the recounts of the ballots lawyers for Gore had been fighting against the counting of overseas ballots which did not have a postmark showing a foreign mailing before Election Day. When Republicans got wind of this, they accused Democrats of being anti-military. Democrats asked vice-presidential candidate Joe Lieberman to put the controversy to rest, but he said on the NBC news program “Meet the Press” that military ballots received by county canvassing boards should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Share
Posted in absentee ballots, Bush v. Gore reflections, election administration, military voting, The Voting Wars | Comments Off

“Will the Real Bob Baker Please Stand Up?”

Interesting press release via email:

SAN CLEMENTE CITY COUNCILMEMBER BOB BAKER TAKES ISSUE WITH BALLOT POSITIONING SHENANIGANS

Incumbent Councilmember “Bob Baker 1” Says Sham Challenger “Bob Baker 0” Gamed the System To Gain an Unfair Advantage.

Robert “Bob” Baker  (“Bob Baker 1”) is seeking reelection to the San Clemente City Council this November.  A second Robert “Bob” Baker (“Bob Baker 0”) has appeared out of thin air to challenge his namesake, leading voters to ask “Will the real Bob Baker please stand up?”

The California Elections Code calls for similarly named candidates to use numerical distinctions to differentiate themselves for the voters.  City Clerk Joanne Baade is listing the Bob Baker who chose the lowest number to appear first among the two Bob Bakers on the ballot.  This is where the situation gets “curiouser and curiouser” like something out of Alice in Wonderland.

The incumbent Bob Baker, who was the first Baker to file his candidacy papers and to select a number, chose the number “1,” reasonably concluding that he had secured the first, and thus lowest, number and would appear above the newcomer Bob Baker on the ballot.  The new Bob Baker, however, instead of logically choosing any number from 2 upward, was allowed to select “0.”  The story should have ended there, with the Clerk rejecting the Johnny-Come-Lately Baker’s selection and requiring him to choose number 2 or any other positive integer besides 1.

But no, instead, the Clerk issued a statement that “Robert ‘Bob’ Baker No. 0 will appear immediately before Robert ‘Bob’ Baker No. 1 on the ballot because zero is a lower number than one.”  Really?

Political scientists have proven, and the California Supreme Court has acknowledged, a “primacy” effect in which the higher up a candidate’s name appears on the ballot, the more likely that candidate is to gain extra votes (often in the amount of several percentage points) over and above those whose names appear lower on the list.  So ballot position matters, which is why the Secretary of State performs a “randomized alphabet drawing” for each election.

Bob Baker 1 expressed surprise at this development, stating “Someone can be 1st in line, but no one can be 0st in line, can they?”  “And do winners of races come in 1st place or 0th place?”  Baker 1 surmised that another candidate recruited Baker 0 to run in order to confuse the voters and dilute Baker 1’s votes.  “San Clemente’s voters are quite intelligent,” said Councilman Baker, “and they will see through this charade and vote for the Bob Baker who doesn’t play games with the electoral process but merely wants to continue serving the City as a member of the Council.”  A voter, who did not want her identity revealed, said “Having served in the U.S. Navy for 7 years and as a commercial pilot for 30 years, Bob Baker 1 is a hero, whereas Bob Baker 0 is a “zero.”

Election law expert Brad Hertz of the Sutton Law Firm, who teaches Election Law at Chapman University Law School and is former President of the California Political Attorneys Association, said “The City Clerk’s actions make no sense, and Bob Baker 0 should not have been allowed to designate himself as such.”  Hertz pointed to Elections Code section 13117, which states that “… all state measures … shall be numbered in a continuous sequence, commencing with the number “1” and continuing in numerical sequence for a period of 10 years from the year of commencement.  At the completion of a 10-year cycle, the numbering sequence shall recommence with the number “1” at the next election….”  Hertz, who commonly litigates election law matters, and with whom Baker 1 has consulted, said “If common sense does not carry the day, then at least this analogous Elections Code section should guide the City Clerk to realize that “1,” not “0,” is the first and lowest number in the context of ballot position.”

 

Share
Posted in campaigns, chicanery | Comments Off

“Donor against marriage amendment will remain unnamed”

Star-Tribune: “The state campaign finance board decided Friday that a marriage amendment contributor who works for a Catholic organization can remain anonymous out of fear that disclosure of his donation to a group opposing the measure could cost him his job. A man known only as ‘John Doe’ had contributed $600 to Minnesotans United for All Families last year, but requested anonymity.”

Share
Posted in campaign finance | Comments Off

“Extra voting hours? That’ll be $406 an hour, please”

The Cincinnati Enquirer reports.

Share
Posted in absentee ballots, election administration, The Voting Wars, voting | Comments Off

“Reformers or Intimidators? Fee Demands Out of Line”

Tom Elias has this column in the Santa Monica Mirror.

Share
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

“Will the Next Election Be Hacked? Online voting is on the rise, but experts see it as a nightmare for the integrity of the electoral process”

This article in the Wall Street Journal begins, as Chapter 6 of The Voting Wars begins: with the Michigan Fight Song (“Hail to the Victors”) playing through the D.C. Board of Elections Computers: Go Blue!

 

Share
Posted in The Voting Wars, voting technology | Comments Off

“Will the Voting Rules Affect Which Candidate Wins?”

Ned Foley blogs on Florida v. U.S. and SEIU v. Husted.  His conclusion:

“The Ohio law of provisional voting, however, presents another story. That law, as interpreted by the state’s supreme court, truly could disenfranchise enough valid voters to tip the balance of the presidential election. Therefore, for those concerned that the rules might determine the winner—and thus risk delegitimizing the result—the SIEU v. Husted challenge to Ohio’s provisional voting rules should be high on the list of cases to track, together with Florida v. U.S.”

 

Share
Posted in election administration, provisional ballots, The Voting Wars, voting | Comments Off

“Mitt Romney’s tax returns: the ‘voter fraud’ theory”

The Guardian reports with the subhead: “There has been much speculation about why Romney refuses to disclose earlier tax returns. Could it be as simple as an address?”

Share
Posted in residency | Comments Off

“Proposition 32: A fraud to end all frauds”

Michael Hilzik has written this LA Times column.

Share
Posted in campaign finance | Comments Off

Quote of the Day

“I don’t think I’m any more liberal than Antonin Scalia is conservative…“I believe in capitalism. I believe in America. I believe that we should have criminal laws. It’s not like I’m an anarchist.”

—Pam Karlan, in Charlie Savage’s must-read article, Obama Lags on Judicial Picks, Limiting His Mark on Courts

Share
Posted in Supreme Court | Comments Off

“Fla. must figure out what to do with early voting”

Must-read AP report on the aftermath of yesterday’s court ruling.

Share
Posted in The Voting Wars, voting, Voting Rights Act | Comments Off

“Texas Asks Fifth Circuit to Stay the U.S. District Court Ruling that Struck Down Restrictions on Voter Registration Drives”

Ballot Access News reports.

Share
Posted in The Voting Wars, voter registration | Comments Off

“Todd Akin: Federal Voting Right Laws Outdated”

News from Mo.: “ST. LOUIS, MO (KTVI)– Republican Congressman Todd Akin said Friday afternoon he thinks it’s time for a second look at federal ‘civil rights and voting rights’ laws. The republican U.S. senate candidate told FOX 2’s Charles Jaco states not the federal government should set voter rules.”

Share
Posted in The Voting Wars, Voting Rights Act | Comments Off

Group behind new Obama attack ad has Republican Party ties; Group of ex spies/commandos casts itself as non-partisan”

Reuters reports.

Share
Posted in campaign finance | Comments Off

“Ohio Secretary Of States Threatens To Remove Democrats Over Weekend Voting Hours Rule”

Buzzfeed reports. As Ned Foley explained yesterday, SOS Husted’s decision for uniformity may have been a step in the right direction, but it is not clear that the best policy is to bar weekend voting.  Weekend voting helps people who work long hours during the week.  And if there is no weekend voting, in large jurisdictions in Ohio there may be very long lines to vote during the week—some people won’t be able to wait.

This is why we are seeing Democratic pushback over Husted’s equalization order.

UPDATE: The Buzzfeed report has now been updated to reflect the suspension of two Democratic election board members in Montgomery County, Ohio.

Share
Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars, voting | Comments Off

“Conservative groups change tactics to keep donors secret”

Politico: “Three of the nation’s most powerful conservative groups have spent more than $30 million on direct political ads since late July, a marked shift in tactics that allows them to keep their donors secret. Americans for Prosperity, Crossroads GPS and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent the vast majority of this money on television and radio ads exclusively opposing President Barack Obama and other Democratic hopefuls, federal records indicate.”

Share
Posted in campaign finance, tax law and election law | Comments Off

“Democratizing the political ad watch”

Don’t miss this fascinating piece by John Geer and Doug Rivers. A taste:

The recently launched Vanderbilt/YouGov Ad Rating Project offers a different approach to assessing ads by asking voters what they think about them. Was the latest attack ad fair? How negative was it? Was it memorable? Has it made voters angry? Did the ad alter the public’s thinking about the candidates?

At this point, we have looked at 13 Obama, Romney and super PAC ads, and the reactions upset some conventional wisdom. For example, while many people dislike negative ads, many also dislike positive ads. Of those interviewed, 48 percent found the negative ads “disgusting,” while 24 percent find positive ads “disgusting.” It’s important to compare reactions to positive and negative ads to establish context.

Share
Posted in campaigns | Comments Off

“Voting Rights Battles Re-emerge in the South”

News21 reports.

Share
Posted in The Voting Wars, voter id, Voting Rights Act | Comments Off

Presenting “The Voting Wars” in DC 9/10 at 6:30 PM

I will be at UCDC- The University of California Washington Center.  You can RSVP here.

Share
Posted in The Voting Wars | Comments Off

“Ignoring the real threat of fraud”

Important Larry Nordenpiece in Politico: “Why are states with new voting restrictions so unconcerned about fraud that is the real threat to our elections? Over the past 18 months, in a bitterly partisan environment, several states have passed new restrictions on access to voting. They often say they did so to prevent fraud. But something doesn’t add up. The very states that passed the most restrictive laws have also failed to take basic security steps recommended by experts to prevent fraud — steps that nearly every other state in the country has taken.”

Share
Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars, voting technology | Comments Off

“The Voting Wars: How Do We Move Beyond Partisanship and Polarizaton–Or Should We?”

This LA ALOUD event will take place in Los Angeles on Sept. 20 at 7:15 pm.

Thursday, September 20, 2012 7:15 PM
Mark Taper Auditorium-Central Library
Thu, Sep 20, 7:15 PM [ALOUD]
The Voting Wars: How Do We Move Beyond Partisanship and Polarization—or Should We?

 

Panel Discussion with author Rick Hasen (The Voting Wars), Connie Rice (attorney), Leslie Berestein Rojas  (Emerging Communities Reporter, KPCC) and Nicole Stygar (O.C. Young Republicans)

Moderated by Marty Kaplan, director, Norman Lear Center, USC Annenberg

Since the year 2000, Democrats and Republicans have become more divided than ever, finding little common ground on important issues, from taxes to war to human rights. On the cusp of a presidential election, this panel considers the escalation in political partisanship and whether we can and should take steps to move from red and blue states back to the United States.

Richard L. Hasen is Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science, University of California, Irvine School of Law. He was founding co-editor of the peer-reviewed Election Law Journal and is a frequently quoted expert in the press on election laws. He is the author of the just-published book, The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown.

Connie Rice has received more than fifty major awards for her leadership and unorthodox approaches to challenging brutality and reversing the raw deal for kids struggling to survive in the thin soil of poverty. She is a graduate of Harvard-Radcliffe Colleges and New York University School of Law. At her organization, Advancement Project, she continues her crusade for basic rights with her Urban Peace team after the 2007 release of their seminal report on gang violence in Los Angeles—A Call To Action.

Leslie Berestein Rojas is the lead reporter for KPCC’s immigration blog, Multi-American, on which she reports on immigration and its influence – cultural, political and otherwise – on an evolving nation and region. She formerly covered immigration from the US-Mexico border for the San Diego Union-Tribune. In addition, Ms. Berestein Rojas has reported from throughout the Americas and has written for the Los Angeles Times, the Orange County Register, Time, People and People en Español.

Nicole Stygar made her political debut as a Deputy Field Director for the California Republican Party in 2006.  She has since travelled all over the country working on campaigns for the RNC, NRCC, and as a Regional Government Affairs Representative for ACCCE (Clean Coal Initiative).  She currently serves as the Secretary for California Young Republican Federation and Executive Director of Orange County Young Republicans.

Marty Kaplan holds the Norman Lear Chair in Entertainment, Media and Society at the USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism, where he was associate dean for ten years and is the founding director of the school’s Norman Lear Center.   He has been a featured blogger on The Huffington Post since its inception, and his commentary appears frequently on radio, TV and in print.

 

Share
Posted in The Voting Wars | Comments Off

Talking About “The Voting Wars” on the Diane Rehm Show (NPR) Tuesday

Details here.  I will post a link to the audio when it is available.

Share
Posted in The Voting Wars | Comments Off

“Hans von Spakovsky Helped Rick Scott’s Office With Voter Purge Media Push”

TPM reports.

Share
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad, The Voting Wars, voter registration | Comments Off

“The Voter Fraud Fraud”

See this editorial in the Jewish Daily Forward.

Share
Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars | Comments Off

More Troubles with How the Pa. Voter ID Law Will Be Enforced

Check out this amicus brief filed in the Pa. voter i.d. case by an election judge.  Poll workers risk criminal liability when they decide whether a name on an i.d. is in “substantial conformity” with the name on the voter rolls.

Share
Posted in election administration, voter id | Comments Off

“What’s Ahead in the ‘Voting Wars’? Certainly Not Peace.”

Colorlines/The Nation (Voting Rights Watch 2012) interviewed me about my new book.  Here’s the beginning of Brentin Mock’s interview:

voting_rights_thumb_42512.png

I spoke with Richard Hasen, a University of California, Irvine, election law scholar, while 10 Pennsylvania residents were arguing in court that the state’s new voter ID law will disenfranchise them and hundreds of thousands more. In that talk, Hasen said, “Pennsylvania looks like it really doesn’t have its act together, and if that law goes into place it could actually have a significant effect on turnout.” But neither of us really though that would happen, mostly because the hearing seemed to make Hasen’s point so clearly. Less than a week later, a Pennsylvania judge proved us wrong when he refused to block the law.

On Hasen’s election law blog, which is widely read by journalists and academics alike, he wrote he was “surprised by the ruling.” To understand his bewilderment, you may want to pick up his recently released book “The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown,” which details hyper-partisan battles around election reform over the past 12 years that have culminated in courtroom showdowns such as those in Pennsylvania and Texas.

In “The Voting Wars,” Hasen argues that parties involved in election reform issues fall into one of two camps: one focused on eliminating voter fraud, no matter how little of it exists, and the other focused on expanding voter access—the former occupied by conservatives and the latter by progressives. In our talk, we unpacked what that means along racial lines, specifically around purging, ACORN and the Voting Rights Act.

Before “The Voting Wars” you developed a reputation for pissing off both the left and right for issuing critiques on both sides of ballot reform issues. Are they equally at fault?

Share
Posted in The Voting Wars | Comments Off

Jon Stewart Takes on Partisan Voting Issues and Calls for Nonpartisan Voter Administration

See here. I wonder if he’s read The Voting Wars. Here’s the segment:

Share
Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars, voter id | Comments Off

Colbert Takes on Proposals to Repeal the 17th Amendment

Share
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

“Contributions Soar for Would-Be Chairmen of House Panels”

Bloomberg reports.

Share
Posted in campaign finance | Comments Off

“Federal Court Rules Florida’s Shortening Of Early Voting Discriminates Against Blacks”

TPM reports.

Share
Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars, Voting Rights Act | Comments Off

“The Partisan Foundations of Judicial Campaign Finance”

Michael Kang and Joanna Shepherd have posted what looks to be a very important paper on judicial elections and campaign finance.  Here is the abstract:

In this comprehensive empirical analysis of judicial campaign finance, we find a predictive relationship between contributions to judges and judicial decisions favorable to contributors, but we also conclude that the intuitive narrative of direct exchanges of money for decisions between individual contributors and judges is too simplistic to describe the larger partisan foundations of modern judicial elections. The Republican and Democratic Parties broker the connections between contributors and their candidates, and we argue in our work that parties, not elections, seem to be the key to money’s influence on judges.

We identify broad liberal and conservative political coalitions, allied roughly with the Democratic and Republican Parties, whose collective contributions exercise systematic ideological influence on judges who receive their money. Although the Supreme Court recognized the potential for judicial bias in cases involving major campaign contributors, we find that campaign finance predicts judicial decisions not simply in the most extreme cases, but systematically along partisan lines across the range of cases. We argue, based on our findings, that parties play an indispensable, but so far underrecognized role in connecting campaign contributions and judges.

Just as importantly, however, we identify a striking partisan asymmetry in judicial campaign finance between the major parties. While Republican judges respond only to campaign finance contributions from conservative sources and do not appear to be influenced by those from liberal sources, Democratic judges are influenced by campaign support from both liberal and conservative sources and thus are uniquely cross pressured from opposite directions. Our analysis, as a result, shows that the influence of campaign finance helps reinforce Republican conservatism and destabilize Democratic liberalism in judicial decision making, netting out in a conservative direction between the two parties.

Share
Posted in campaign finance, judicial elections | Comments Off

Breaking News [UPDATED]: 3-Judge Court in DC Blocks Florida Elimination of Early Voting Days in 5 Counties Covered by Voting Rights Act

[UPDATED POST] AP reports a 119 page decision, (and 38 pages of factual findings) issued by a three-judge court. The court gave this summary of its holding:

Upon consideration of the entire record, our conclusions may be summarized as follows. First, we conclude that we cannot, at this time, preclear Florida’s early voting changes because the State has failed to satisfy its burden of proving that those changes will not have a retrogressive effect on minority voters. Specifically, the State has not proven that the changes will be nonretrogressive if the covered counties offer only the minimum number of early voting hours that they are required to offer under the new statute, which would constitute only half the hours required under the prior law.
Following an approach approved by the Supreme Court, however, we also conclude that if Florida and the covered counties were to submit a preclearance plan that offered early voting for the maximum number of hours authorized by the new statute, which would be exactly the same number as under the prior law, and did so on a standard 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. schedule, it is likely that Florida would be able to satisfy its burden of proving that the overall effect of its early voting changes would be nonretrogressive. Second, we conclude that Florida has satisfied its burden of proving that the changes to the procedures for inter-county movers neither were enacted with a discriminatory purpose nor will have a retrogressive effect on minority voters, and that those changes are therefore entitled to preclearance.
The opinion that follows summarizes our findings of fact and sets forth our conclusions of law on the question of statutory preclearance.2 The appendix to this opinion separately sets forth our findings of fact. See FED. R. CIV. P. 52.

Footnote 2 reads: Florida’s complaint also seeks alternative relief in the form of a declaratory judgment that section 5 and section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act are unconstitutional. See [147] Third Am. Compl. ¶¶ 102-11. We have bifurcated the statutory preclearance and constitutional issues, and will address the latter in the course of future proceedings in this case.

 

Share
Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars, Voting Rights Act | Comments Off

“Political campaign ad spending tops $500 million”

NBC: “With the $37 million being spent this week on political advertising — including the campaigns and the Super PACs that support them — the grand total for this campaign is now more than $512 million, about the amount spent on advertising in the entire 2008 general election, according to an NBC News/Smart Media Group Delta analysis. Almost half of that money is coming from outside groups, like Super PACs — and the vast majority of the outside money is going to support presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney.”

Share
Posted in campaign finance | Comments Off

“Pa. drops plans for 2 online initiatives to boost voting”

Hmmm: “On the same day a judge cleared the way for the state’s new voter identification law to take effect, the Corbett administration abandoned plans to allow voters to apply online for absentee ballots for the November election and to register online to vote.”

Share
Posted in absentee ballots, election administration, The Voting Wars, voter registration | Comments Off

‘Does Rep. Jerry McNerney take out his trash in Stockton or Pleasanton?”

Residency questions in CA.

Share
Posted in campaigns, residency | Comments Off

Media Matters Takes on Contested Facts in Fund/von Spakovsky Book

Here.

Share
Posted in The Voting Wars | Comments Off

“Challengers of Pa. voter photo ID law file appeal”

AP reports.

Share
Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars, voter id | Comments Off

Military Voters and Pa. Voter ID

A reader sends along the following thoughts:

While I firmly believe the Voter ID initiatives by several states are politically aimed at voter suppression among blacks and other minorities,I found myself being able to identify personally with the effects as explained by a Pennsylvania Congressman on the PBS News Hour the day the decision was handed down by the Commonwealth Judge. If the Congressman was correct in his explanation, one affected category of voter affected was military retirees. He explained that in Pa. all Picture IDs, Driver’s Licenses or Military IDs have to be current and reflect an expiration date. As military retiree, my military ID Card does not have an expiration date. It simply says Indefinite since I’m a retiree. It seems Pa. will not accept the Military ID Card of a retired serviceperson. My spouse’s military ID card does currently reflect an expiration date. Under current regulations however when she turns 75 she has to get a final ID Card that will reflect Indefinite just like mine. So if we were residents of Pa. and had become too old and infirm to drive, neither of us could use the military ID. True we would be able to get some sort of picture ID from the Motor Vehicle Registration offices but you get the gist. I’m sure the adverse impact of this law is worse for the minorities and I don’t know the total numbers of older military retirees that this affects but if it’s more than one it’s too damned many. I also wonder if other states have made similar decisions.

Is this correct under PA law?  Anyone too infirm to drive would likely be entitled to an absentee ballot, which is one way to deal with this problem.

Share
Posted in election administration, military voting, The Voting Wars, voter id | Comments Off

“House Rules on Employment Negotiations and Recusal: the Case of Representative Cardoza”

Michael Stern blogs.

Share
Posted in conflict of interest laws, legislation and legislatures, lobbying | Comments Off

Must-Read Ned Foley Post on Husted Early Voting Decision, Military Voting Case, and Pa Voter ID Case

Ned Foley has a must-read post, Analyzing a “Voting Wars” Trifecta.

Here’s a taste on each of the three areas Ned covers.

On Husted’s uniform voting requirement: “But one can reasonably question whether Husted’s new directive upholds the standard of fair-minded, nonpartisan election administration that Husted has repeatedly professed that he wishes to follow. The uniformity that Husted has now required precludes any in-person voting on Saturdays and Sunday during the five-week period that Ohio’s statutory law provides for early voting. Is that a position that a nonpartisan Director of Elections, who is neither Republican nor Democrat, would take?”

On Democrats’ suit involving early voting period and the military: “In my judgment, the better position is that even though the Anderson/Burdick/Crawford test is not the same as the “rational basis” test, the State ought to be credited with whatever policy justifications can be offered to justify a non-exclusionary regulation of the voting process. Perhaps it is the fact that I served as Ohio’s State Solicitor for two years (while on leave from Ohio State’s law school), but I don’t think federal constitutional law should trip up a State just because the State used an arguably faulty legislative process for adopting a substantive rule that would be undeniably valid using a different legislative process. Instead, except when strict scrutiny properly applies, the respect that States as sovereign governments in our federalist system deserve requires (in my view) that they should be given the benefit of the doubt, so that their legislation is sustained under federal constitutional law whenever there is a reasonable policy argument available to sustain it.”

On yesterday’s decision on Pa’s voter id. challenge: “I think the court there was justified in refusing to invalidate the law in its entirety, just as the U.S. Supreme Court was justified in Crawford in refusing to invalidate Indiana’s voter ID law in its entirety. The simple point is that the photo ID requirement in both cases is not a burden for the many voters who already possess the required photo ID, and as to these voters there is no reason to prohibit election officials from applying the requirement to present that form of ID when they vote. To be sure, there may be no great necessity in the State’s insistence that these voters show a photo ID, rather than some other form (like a bank statement or utility bill), but given the absence of a burden as to these voters, the State should be permitted to have its way. After all, the obligation to show a photo ID might have some minimally deterrent effect against ineligible voting, and given no harm to voters who already have this form of ID, the balance tips in the State’s favor. (As a policy matter, I would prefer an alternative voter ID requirement, but suboptimal policy does not render a law unconstitutional.)”

Read Ned!

Share
Posted in absentee ballots, election administration, military voting, provisional ballots, Supreme Court, The Voting Wars, voter id, voter registration, voting | Comments Off

“Rep. Dennis Cardoza was negotiating new job for weeks”

Politico: “Rep. Dennis Cardoza entered into serious negotiations for his new job with a California law firm two weeks before his sudden resignation from Congress, POLITICO has learned. Cardoza, who Tuesday said he was quitting Congress, filed paperwork with the House Ethics Committee on July 30 saying he was talking with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips. As of Wednesday morning, he was listed on Manatt’s website as a managing director in the firm’s public policy practice. (The listing was subsequently removed from the site.)”

Share
Posted in conflict of interest laws, legislation and legislatures, lobbying | Comments Off

“Can Harold Ickes Make It Rain for Obama?”

Andy Kroll has this piece in Mother Jones magazine.

Share
Posted in campaign finance | Comments Off

Interview About Pa. Voter ID with WHYY’s “Radio Times”

I was on this morning, and you can listen here.

Share
Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars, voter id | Comments Off

“A Conversation with Dana Chisnell Field Guides To Ensuring Voter Intent”

That’s the lead story in this week’s Electionline Weekly.

Share
Posted in election administration | Comments Off

“Report: McCotter should’ve been disqualified in 2010″

Politico reports.

Share
Posted in ballot access, chicanery | Comments Off

“Telemarketers Get Higher Approval Rating Than U.S. Congress”

Bloomberg: “Stockbrokers receive higher public- approval marks than the U.S. Congress. So do telemarketers, health maintenance organizations and banks. Approval of Congress’s performance fell to 10 percent in August, tying a record low set in February, according to a Gallup poll released Aug. 14.”

Share
Posted in legislation and legislatures, political polarization | Comments Off

“Was ‘Understands’ Coordinated? An anti-Romney ad might violate campaign-finance laws.”

Steve Hoersting writes for NRO.

Share
Posted in campaign finance | Comments Off

“Husted standardizes Ohio’s early voting hours”

The Cincinnati Enquirer reports.  See also this editorial.

Share
Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars, voting | Comments Off

“Obama’s costly investment not yielding new voters”

Boston Globe: “But a Globe analysis of voter registration data in swing states reveals scant evidence that the massive undertaking is yielding much fresh support for Obama. In stark contrast to 2008, when a strong partisan tailwind propelled Democratic voter registration to record levels, this year Republican and independent gains are far outpacing those of Democrats.”

Share
Posted in campaigns, voter registration | Comments Off

“Voter ID appeal likely to be heard quickly by state Supreme Court”

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports.

Share
Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars, voter id | Comments Off