AP reports: A proposal to end some affirmative action programs in Michigan should be allowed on the November 2006 ballot, the state appeals court ruled Monday.

The ruling is a victory for the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which backs the proposed constitutional amendment to ban racial and gender preferences in government hiring and university admissions.

The group filed the lawsuit after the Board of State Canvassers failed to approve or reject its ballot petitions this summer.

In its ruling Monday, a three-judge panel of the appeals court said the elections board was obligated to certify the petitions. There is no dispute that the petitions are proper and that enough signatures were collected, the court said. -- Newsday.com: Mich. Court: Proposal Should Go on Ballot

Here's the opinion.

Posted by Ed at 8:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Cross-posted to DearSenator.org

Ballot Access News reports: Judge Samuel Alito authored a New Jersey ballot access decision in 1999, Council of Alternative Political Parties v Hooks, 179 F 3d 64. It upheld New Jersey’s early June petition deadline for non-presidential minor party and independent candidates. Alito upheld the deadline based on the state’s interest in “voter education� (in other words, if candidates could get on the ballot as late as, say, August, there might not be even time for voters to learn about them). Also, Alito said that a state has an interest in treating all candidates equally. The major parties hold their primaries in June, the same day minor party and independent candidate petitions are due; Alito felt it would be unfair to the major parties if minor parties could enter the race later than the primary. -- Judge Alito’s Ballot Access Decision

I did a quick Westlaw search this morning as I heard the news about Alito. This was the only case I found in the election area.

Posted by Ed at 7:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Cross-posted to DearSenator.org

People for the American Way has issued a report on many of Judge Alito's decisions. There are only two cases in the report dealing with elections:

Rappa v. New Castle County, 18 F.3d 1043 (3d Cir. 1994) -- at the bottom of page 18

Patriot Party v. Allegheny County Dep’t of Elections, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 12688 (3d Cir. 1998), aff’d en banc, 174 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 1999) -- on page 19

Posted by Ed at 7:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Des Moines Register reports: An Iowa court Friday upheld Gov. Tom Vilsack's executive order restoring voting rights to all felons who have served their state sentences.

Muscatine County Attorney Gary Allison challenged the July action by Vilsack, filing a petition to block it in District Court in Muscatine.

Vilsack, a Democrat, was criticized by Republicans for the move, which puts Iowa among 47 states that allow felons the right to vote.

Before Vilsack signed the order, felons could ask to have their voting rights restored but were subject to a lengthy process involving the state parole board and governor's office.

Republicans accused Vilsack of having a partisan motive for the action, which they said favored Democrats in the closely divided political battleground state. -- DesMoinesRegister.com

Thanks to TalkLeft for the link.

Posted by Ed at 6:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP reports: The chairman of the Texas Democratic Party today rejected a subpoena asking him to provide five years of fund-raising materials in connection with the criminal case against former Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

Charles Soechting, the state chairman, said he would attend, as ordered, a court hearing Tuesday to decide whether a Democratic judge should remain on DeLay's case. But, he will not bring the documents requested by DeLay's attorney Bill White unless ordered by the court.

White issued the subpoena on Thursday, asking Soechting for mail-outs, brochures, e-mails and other requests seeking Democratic support and donations "particularly, but not limited to, materials that mention Tom DeLay, or Texas redistricting, or the Texas Legislative races of 2002." -- HoustonChronicle.com - Democrat refuses to produce data sought by DeLay

Posted by Ed at 6:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP reports: Democratic state district Judge Bob Perkins has been subpoenaed to testify Tuesday at a hearing to determine whether he is too biased to preside over U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay's criminal case.

DeLay's attorneys want Perkins replaced as the presiding judge because of multiple contributions he's made to Democrats.

Perkins filed a motion to quash the subpoena to avoid testifying. He cited previous court rulings that support a judge's absence in his own recusal hearings. ...

DeLay's attorneys have cited 34 political contributions Perkins made to Democrats since 2000, including donations to MoveOn.org, a liberal advocacy group that has waged a campaign against DeLay and generally attacks Republicans and their policies. -- AP Wire | 10/31/2005 | Judge under fire by DeLay subpoenaed to testify

Posted by Ed at 6:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP reports: The head of Indiana's chapter of the American Association of Retired Persons says a new state law requiring Hoosier voters to show an ID at the polls could put a burden on older, ailing Hoosiers who don't have driver's licenses.
State AARP director Nancy Griffin said a recent survey by the group found that 10 percent of registered Indiana voters age 60 and older lack driver's licenses.

She said the results "trouble" her because she worries the law passed this spring by lawmakers could "make it tough for our members -- particularly our older, sicker members -- to exercise their constitutional right to vote."
However, the law's author -- state Sen. Vic Heinhold, R-Kouts -- says AARP is "stacking their numbers" for dramatic purposes.
He said a simple photo ID is permissible, and points out that only 3 percent of the 843 people AARP surveyed don't have any such ID. -- Voter law bad for seniors, AARP says | IndyStar.com

Posted by Ed at 6:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Washington Post reports: A plan to shuffle the 2008 Democratic presidential calendar -- placing several states between the traditional Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary -- is gaining momentum on a commission studying the party's nominating process.

A consensus is developing to recommend scheduling nominating contests in two or possibly three states in the days between Iowa and New Hampshire, according to some members of a Democratic National Committee panel looking at ways to revamp the nominating schedule. ....

If such a recommendation were adopted, it likely would diminish the influence of two small states that for decades have enjoyed outsized influence in picking presidential nominees, and would cause aspiring presidential candidates to rethink their strategies about travel and spending, and potentially even their campaign messages, in pursuit of the nomination.

Some proponents of a new calendar say adding caucuses rather than primaries in states voting immediately after Iowa would be consistent with a New Hampshire state law that mandates the Granite State's primary be held at least one week before any "similar" nominating election. This would allow both Iowa and New Hampshire to claim that each preserved elements of their coveted first-in-the-nation status, while also bowing to critics who have long complained that the traditional calendar is unfair to other states. -- Deal Near on Democratic Presidential Schedule

Posted by Ed at 7:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP reports: The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico sued the city of Albuquerque on Thursday over its new voter ID ordinance, contending it's unconstitutional.

The ordinance, approved by voters Oct. 4, requires people who vote at the polls to present a current, valid identification card that includes their name and photograph. People who vote absentee are exempt from photo ID requirements. ...

Mark Shoesmith, an assistant city attorney, said the city could not comment because officials had not seen the lawsuit.

However, he said the ordinance contains fail-safe procedures to make sure people get to vote — even if they lack a photo ID — by using paper provisional ballots. A canvassing board later counts those that are ruled valid. -- ABQJOURNAL: ACLU Challenging ABQ Voter ID Ordinance

Posted by Ed at 9:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports: The federal appeals court in Atlanta today denied a request to set aside an injunction barring enforcement of the state's new voter ID requirement in the upcoming municipal elections held statewide.

In a brief order, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a motion by the state Attorney General's Office to throw out a order last week by U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy in Rome that suspended enforcement of the law. The decision was made by 11th Circuit Judges Stanley Birch, Joel Dubina and Frank Hull. -- U.S. court backs order suspending voter ID in Ga. | ajc.com

Posted by Ed at 9:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Legal Times reports: It is widely agreed that Republican Rep. Tom DeLay plays politics the way Ty Cobb ran the base paths -- spikes up. How lawful that style is depends on who is answering the question. The Supreme Court may soon be weighing in on DeLay's conduct if it agrees to hear arguments on his orchestrated reshaping of federal representation for his home state of Texas.

The Supreme Court will consider Travis County, Texas, et al. v. Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, et al., along with several other related Texas redistricting cases, during its private conference on Friday. They are among dozens of cases the Court will review at the conference to determine if they should be added to the Court's docket for argument.

In October 2004 the Supreme Court remanded the Texas redistricting case back to a three-judge federal panel, which then rejected, for a second time, legal challenges to the new Texas congressional map, passed in 2003 and followed in the 2004 election.

The appellants, which include elected officials and special interest groups, are asking the Court to throw out the new map in favor of one drawn shortly after the 2000 census. They also want the Court to explicitly define what constitutes partisan gerrymandering -- an act the Court last year deemed unconstitutional. If the Court agrees to hear the case, opening arguments could begin next spring. -- High Court May Take Up Texas Redistricting

Posted by Ed at 4:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The New York Times reports: Responding to the accounting scandals at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the House of Representatives approved legislation on Wednesday overhauling the regulatory oversight of the two huge mortgage financing companies. ...

The House bill sets aside 3.5 percent to 5 percent of the company's profits over the next five years for grants to build low-income housing. But a provision inserted in the bill at the 11th hour to assuage conservative Republicans provoked considerable debate because it would prohibit any group that engages in voter mobilization efforts from applying for grants.

The provision was opposed by more than 600 nonprofit and faith-based groups, including the National Urban League, Catholic Social Services, the N.A.A.C.P. and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. They said the provision was unconstitutional, contending that it interfered with voter registration efforts, and undermined the purpose of creating the housing fund. -- House Approves Overhaul at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - New York Times

Posted by Ed at 6:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Mobile Register reports: The Alabama Supreme Court denied Gov. Bob Riley's request to delay an upcoming special election to fill a vacancy on the Mobile County Commission.

The unanimous decision, announced Tuesday, means that the election most likely will proceed as scheduled with party primaries on Nov. 22. The general election is set for Jan. 3. ...

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court also agreed to expedite its review of a lower court ruling in the case. Briefs could be accepted as late as Dec. 8, well after the primaries. ...

The vacancy occurred when longtime District 1 Commissioner Sam Jones, a Democrat, was sworn in as mayor of Mobile earlier this month.

Three Mobile County legislators, all Democrats, sued to force a vote for the seat. Trial Judge Eugene Reese, a Democrat on the Montgomery County Circuit Court, ruled that there should be a special election to choose someone to serve the three years remain ing on Jones' commission term. The special election is projected to cost $189,000. -- High court clears way for primaries

Posted by Ed at 8:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Stateline.org reports: State and federal regulators are cracking down on nonprofit political groups, so-called 527s, suspected of circumventing state campaign finance laws.

According to the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit, nonpartisan political watchdog group, the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC), which backs state-level GOP candidates, is drawing scrutiny for its role in the 2004 Pennsylvania attorney general’s race. The RSLC also has been fined $20,000 in Louisiana and $10,000 in North Carolina, according to the Center.

In a new report, it said Minnesota regulators had levied a record $400,000 penalty against a Democratic political organization that failed to file proper state disclosure forms. And an Arizona nonprofit agreed to disband this year after a nearly year-long battle with state campaign finance officials who fined the group $5,000, the Center said.

It said an audit by the Internal Revenue Service estimates that more than 30 percent of such groups are improperly registered as nonprofit organizations. The IRS is planning to investigate all similar state-level political groups, which are exempt from federal limits on campaign contributions and spending, and make sure they are following state limits. -- 527s under scrutiny from states

Posted by Ed at 8:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Birmingham News reports: Rep. Artur Davis' proposal to give displaced hurricane evacuees a chance to vote absentee in their home state elections has gained support on Capitol Hill but so far only from Democrats.

The legislation, if approved, would treat evacuees from Louisiana and Mississippi like military personnel and let them vote back home in the 2006 and 2008 federal elections.

Since its introduction Sept. 13, Davis' bill has attracted 33 co-sponsors, all of them Democrats, and a Senate version of the bill has three Democratic supporters. ...

The proposal would require voters to certify that they are storm evacuees, provide their former address, and attest that they plan to return to their original residence after the election. Each state's own absentee voting laws would also apply. -- Democrats support bill to allow absentee voting by evacuees

Posted by Ed at 7:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP reports: Republicans who lost a federal court battle over Colorado congressional redistricting said Tuesday they will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, setting off another round in the contentious battle over new election maps.

John Zakhem said a decision by federal judges to throw out the last remaining challenge to Colorado's congressional districts was unconstitutional because it deprived citizens of their right to hold their legislators accountable.

A special three-judge panel dismissed the challenge on grounds the state Supreme Court resolved the case when it upheld a congressional redistricting plan drawn by a district court judge and supported by Democrats.

Zakhem said he will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to rule before next year's elections. -- Summit Daily News for Breckenridge, Keystone, Copper and Frisco Colorado - News

Posted by Ed at 10:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP reports: A Justice Department official urged Congress Tuesday to renew an essential part of the Voting Rights Act, saying it deterred local election changes that could discriminate against minorities. ...

But Edward Blum, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said the department's own figures prove that the requirement is outdated. He also cited a recent study that shows the turnout rate for black voters exceeds white voters in Georgia and that black candidates have little trouble getting elected there.

Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla., dismissed that argument, saying it was akin to doing away with meat inspectors just because there has been a drop in the number of infected cows. -- AP Wire | 10/25/2005 | DOJ official urges Voting Rights renewal

Posted by Ed at 10:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP reports: Requiring voters to show a photo identification card would disenfranchise minorities, the elderly and the poor, U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Milwaukee, told a congressional committee Monday.

But Rep. Mark Green, R-Green Bay, told the Committee on House Administration that a voter ID requirement is a simple way to restore people's trust in the integrity of elections.

The committee held the hearing in Milwaukee at Green's request to discuss problems from last year's presidential election in Wisconsin. ...

Sharon Robinson, the director of Milwaukee's Department of Administration, said many instances of voter irregularity in 2004 were more a result of administrative oversight than outright fraud. For example, some 4,600 more ballots were cast than voters tallied at the polls, but Robinson said poll workers sometimes forgot to tear up the pink voter numbers that kept count of voters for each ballot distributed. The result, she said, was that the same voter number might have been used more than once.

Moore asked Robinson whether a voter ID bill could prevent such administrative snafus in the future.

"Photo IDs would not have fixed the problem," Robinson said. She said the greater priority should be to provide effective and uniform training to poll workers. -- The Capital Times

Posted by Ed at 9:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights emails: The U.S. House of Representatives will likely vote this week on a provision that would dramatically restrict the ability of Americans to engage in our democratic process. Financial Services Committee Chair Mike Oxley, R-Ohio, will propose a "manager's amendment" to the Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) in the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act (H.R. 1461) that would have a chilling effect on the nonprofit community's ability to participate in nonpartisan voter activities.

Take action! Call your U.S. Representative TODAY at (202) 224-3121.

The egregious "manager's amendment" provisions would restrict nonprofit entities from receiving AHF grants if the organization has, in the 12 months prior, engaged in voter registration, voter identification, get-out-the-vote, other nonpartisan voter participation activities, or some types of lobbying or grassroots advocacy. Further, any nonprofit that has "affiliated" with an organization that engages in these activities would be barred from receiving grants. Nonprofits that did receive grants would be prohibited from engaging in any of these activities, even if non-federal funds were used to pay for them. Notably, for-profit companies are exempt from these restrictions.

These provisions are blatantly undemocratic and likely unconstitutional. Further, they conflict with requirements of the National Voter Registration Act (the "motor voter law"), which requires many agencies that receive state funding to conduct voter registration with their residents or clients. These provisions seem intended for no other purpose than to reduce access to voting by low-income people.

While the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR) supports the Affordable Housing Fund, which would establish grants to produce and preserve housing that is affordable to extremely low and very low-income families, LCCR strongly opposes the anti-democratic provisions in the manager's amendment.

A broad coalition of housing, community development, faith-based, nonprofit rights, and civil rights organizations are working to have the egregious language removed. It is also critically important that your representative hear from you!

Posted by Ed at 4:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

CNN reports: Rosa Parks, whose act of civil disobedience in 1955 inspired the modern civil rights movement, died Monday in Detroit, Michigan. She was 92.

Parks' moment in history began in December 1955 when she refused to give up her seat on a bus to a white man in Montgomery, Alabama.

Her arrest triggered a 381-day boycott of the bus system by blacks that was organized by a young Baptist minister, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. (See video on an activist's life and times -- 2:52)

The boycott led to a court ruling desegregating public transportation in Montgomery, but it wasn't until the 1964 Civil Rights Act that all public accommodations nationwide were desegregated. -- CNN.com - Civil rights icon Rosa Parks dies at 92 - Oct 24, 2005

Thanks to Kos for the link.

Posted by Ed at 11:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP reports: The Federal Election Commission must begin work on writing tougher campaign finance rules to govern the 2006 elections after a federal appeals court declined to intervene in a challenge.

In a one-page order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declined to reconsider a decision requiring the FEC to write new rules to carry out a 2002 campaign finance law.

The FEC requested the full court's review in August after a three-judge panel upheld U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly's 2004 ruling striking down several FEC rules interpreting the new law.

Commissioner Michael Toner said Friday's order means the FEC must start drafting tougher rules on political donations, including how Internet activity will be regulated. The FEC could still appeal to the Supreme Court, but has not indicated whether it will do so. -- Appeals court declines to review decision on campaign finance rules - Boston.com

Posted by Ed at 10:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP reports: The county commissioner districts in Charles Mix County are unconstitutional because there is too large a deviation in the population of the three districts, a federal judge ruled Monday.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Piersol of Sioux Falls gave Charles Mix County officials until Nov. 14 to file a new redistricting plan that would comply with constitutional requirements.

If the county decides not to file its own remedial plan, the judge could impose a new districting plan.

American Indian voters filed a lawsuit alleging that the county commissioner districts were improper because they violated the constitutional requirement for one-person, one-vote; violated a federal law by diluting Indian voting strength; and violated constitutional provisions because they were drawn to harm the voting rights of Indians. -- AP Wire | 10/24/2005 | Judge strikes down Charles Mix County commissioner districts

Posted by Ed at 10:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP reports: A federal lawsuit filed Thursday by five American Indians challenging the system of at-large elections in Wyoming's Fremont County is part of a continuing, nationwide effort by Indians to assert their voting rights, attorneys say.

Five members of the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho tribes charge that Fremont County's system of at-large elections dilutes the Indian vote. Although nearly 20 percent of Fremont County's 35,800 residents are Indian, none of the five county commissioners is Indian.

The plaintiffs are represented by local lawyers and Atlanta lawyers with the American Civil Liberties Union. -- Arizona Daily Sun-

Posted by Ed at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

WDBJ in Roanoke reports: Virginia Democrats say Republican organizations broke state campaign finance laws. And now the Democrats have filed a complaint with the State Board of Elections.

The Democrats claim the Republican State Leadership Committee is using cash from a hidden donor to air campaign ads for Republican attorney general candidate Bob McDonnell.

State Democrat leaders believe the R-S-L-C is doing the bidding of a wealthy and perhaps well-known individual donor and hiding his identity until after the November Eighth election. R

-S-L-C officials say they are confident they have complied with Virginia laws, as does the McDonnell campaign. -- Democrats accuse Republican group of breaking campaign finance laws

Posted by Ed at 10:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Sunday New York Times Magazine's Idea Lab column will report: Rising out of the farmland south of Sacramento, Elk Grove is a pleasant, unremarkable collection of scrubbed subdivisions with artificial lakes and velveteen lawns. What makes Elk Grove special - and of intense interest to politicians - is that in a state where political segregation is the norm, Democrats and Republicans live side by side in almost equal numbers.

When the residents of Elk Grove choose their state legislators, however, their votes are divided into two improbable assembly districts that meander into outlying rural areas and give each a Republican majority. Those districts are the legacy of a statewide redistricting in California in 2001 from which both parties benefited. The Democrats retained firm control of the State Legislature and the 53-member Congressional delegation, while Republicans were assured 20 safe seats in Congress and a spoiler's share of the seats in the state Capitol. ...

The drawing of legislative boundaries is one of the most politicized and corruptible practices in American-style government, and few people will say they approve of the gerrymandering it has unleashed. Boundary-rigging infamously kept blacks from gaining political power in the South. (One Mississippi district, mapped in the late 1870's with the single purpose of preventing the re-election of a black congressman, was 500 miles long and 40 miles wide.) In the early part of the 20th century, rural lawmakers held onto power by simply ignoring their obligation to draw new boundaries as people migrated to the cities and populations shifted, thus denying the swelling cities the political representation their numbers warranted. ...

But while it's easy to make a case against gerrymandering, it's much harder to say how districts should be drawn. Most states require that district boundaries be revisited every 10 years, after the release of new census data and the reapportionment of the country's Congressional seats. The creation of contiguous districts is the most widely accepted and uncontroversial criterion. Every state requires contiguity, and in 1842, Congress passed the first federal law that mandated the drawing of contiguous Congressional districts. A few other rules apply: the Supreme Court decisions of the 1960's forced Congressional districts to be roughly equal in population. The Voting Rights Act also prohibits "retrogression" in minority voting rights in certain states and the diluting of the political strength of minority communities anywhere. But beyond these piecemeal and often vague criteria - contiguity, after all, can accommodate serpentine shapes - legislators are free to create the maps as they see fit. -- Who Should Redistrict? - New York Times

Posted by Ed at 10:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP reports:
Three U.S. representatives, all Cuban-American Republicans from Miami, have challenged a proposal to strip the Florida Legislature of its redistricting power and hand that job to an independent commission.

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and brothers Lincoln and Mario Diaz-Balart filed written arguments Thursday with the Florida Supreme Court against a proposed state constitutional amendment that would create a 15-member panel to reapportion legislative and congressional districts.

They alleged it would violate the Florida Constitution's requirement that amendments deal with a single subject, arguing that congressional and legislative redistricting are separate matters.

They also contend the ballot title and summary are misleading on a variety of grounds including a failure to disclose that the governor would lose power to veto congressional redistricting plans. Legislative redistricting does not go to the governor. -- Dateline Alabama

Posted by Ed at 10:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Dallas Morning News reports: It was the city's most divisive issue of the time.

Harriet Miers, a newly elected Dallas City Council member considered to be the choice of the business community, was thrust into the city's voting rights battle as a moderate voice who would become a swing vote. ...

She said she also supported retaining two at-large seats but didn't want to fight the judge's order. Yet she later voted to see whether the alternate plan, approved by voters, would hold up on appeal.

At the same time, she was one of the first two white council members to favor the court-ordered plan that minorities wanted.

When Judge Buchmeyer ordered the city to hold council elections under the plan with all single-member districts, Ms. Miers again voted to appeal. As the swing vote on the issue, she said she wanted to see a legal test of the city's plan since voters approved it.

By March 1991, even the business community had had enough.

"We want the city to realize that it has more important priorities than staying in the courthouse," Sam Coats, chairman of the Convention and Visitors Bureau, said at the time. "The absurdity of this continued appeal is appalling to me."

He was joined by the Greater Dallas Chamber of Commerce, on whose board Ms. Miers had served. Even so, Ms. Miers said she would not be swayed by business leaders. Only when it was clear the city could not win in court did she and the other holdouts consent. ...

Dallas lawyer Adelfa Callejo headed a coalition of Hispanic organizations that backed the court-ordered plan. She said she felt Ms. Miers was trying to do the right thing.

"She met with us many times. I think she learned a lot about us. She's a person who wants to learn," she said. "It may take her a while, but she will do what is fair." ...

Lawrence Sager, a University of Texas law professor and constitutional scholar, said Ms. Miers' willingness to change her position on the issue makes her a more attractive candidate for the high court.

"There is a general sense that people not only change but grow," he said. "The worst thing said about Harriet Miers was said by President Bush when he insisted he knew who she was and that she would not change." -- Dallas Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | Nation

Posted by Ed at 10:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The St. Petersburg Times reports: The White House has portrayed Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers as well-versed in constitutional law, someone who could easily handle the unique legal turf of the nation's highest court.

But law professors who have reviewed Miers' Senate questionnaire say it shows little work on important constitutional issues. And, perhaps more troublesome for Miers, they say she made a significant error explaining her experience, referring to a 14th Amendment protection that does not exist.

"She is unquestionably an intelligent person and a competent lawyer," said Cass Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago. "But she's had very little experience in constitutional law." ...

In her initial 11/2-page response, Miers said she dealt with those issues as White House counsel, as a corporate lawyer and during her two years on the Dallas City Council.

"For instance," she wrote, "when addressing a lawsuit under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the council had to be sure to comply with the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause."

But law professors said the clause, which is part of the 14th Amendment, does not have a "proportional representation requirement."

"Whatever she is trying to say there, she didn't say it well," said Cheh, adding that the error "is worrisome because it might be a basic misunderstanding about the Voting Rights Act."

Sunstein, a well-known constitutional scholar, said Miers may have made the mistake because of "a simple brain freeze, the sort that all human beings are subject to. On the other hand, it is at least mildly embarrassing to make a mistake of that magnitude." -- Worldandnation: Miers falls flat with scholars

Posted by Ed at 10:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Knight Ridder Newspapers reports: Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers collected more than 10 times the market value for a small slice of family-owned land in a large Superfund pollution cleanup site in Dallas where the state wanted to build a highway off-ramp.

The windfall came after a judge who received thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Miers' law firm appointed a close professional associate of Miers and an outspoken property-rights activist to the three-person panel that determined how much the state should pay.

The resulting six-figure payout to the Miers family in 2000 was despite the state’s objections to the "excessive� amount and to the process used to set the price. The panel recommended paying nearly $5 a square foot for land that was valued at less than 30 cents a square foot.

Mediation efforts in 2003 reduced the award from $106,915 to $80,915, but Miers, who controls the family’s interest in the land, hasn’t reimbursed the state for the $26,000 difference, even after Bush appointed her to the Supreme Court.

The case raises new questions about Miers’ judgment at a time when her nomination is troubled by doubts about her qualifications for the nation’s highest court and accusations that she was chosen mostly because of her close friendship with President Bush.

Nothing indicates that Miers sought out the judge or engineered the appointments to the panel, but there’s also no indication that she reported the potential conflicts of interest in the case or tried to avoid them. -- Miers family received 'excessive' sum in land case

Lots of detail in the story. It might be useful to have a pencil and paper to draw yourself a chart of all the connections between the dramatis personae.

Posted by Ed at 10:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports: State attorneys on Friday asked a federal appeals court to overturn by Halloween a judge's order that puts a new voter ID law on hold — in time for poll workers to organize 350 county and city elections.

In a flurry of motions and strong language at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, state attorneys accused U.S. District Court Judge Harold Murphy of wrongly substituting his judgment for that of the state Legislature, and of creating "a constitutional right to vote in person."

State attorneys, who want the law back in place for the Nov. 8 municipal elections, said voters who didn't have the proper ID to vote in person could easily qualify for absentee ballots.

Meanwhile, the state Board of Elections devolved into partisan theater over the voter ID suit — yet another sign of how politically charged the issue has been since the legislation was introduced this spring. The board's three controlling Republican members demanded that Democratic Secretary of State Cathy Cox step down from the suit, and one asked for her resignation. -- State appeals ruling that halts voter ID law

Posted by Ed at 9:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I have just upgraded to Movable Type 3.2 (from 2.661) in about 90 minutes, including some piddling around.

I may be adjusting some stuff in the next few weeks, so look for announcements.

Update: I have turned comments back on. But they aren't working yet.

Update Saturday morning: Apparently there will have to be a lot of updating to get all my code up to the new standard. I will be working on that as I get a chance.

Update Saturday evening: OK, I have comments working. Not pretty, but working. They will be working on all posts from now on. I will also turn them on for the last day or two of posts.

Posted by Ed at 9:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

AP reports: A judge upheld a state law that has allowed Republicans to remain listed at the top of election ballots for decades.

The 90-year-old New Hampshire law says the party that won the most votes in the previous election goes first on the general election ballot. A group of Democrats, independents, Libertarians and some Republicans argued that the GOP has had the advantage of numbers for years, and likely is to continue to be first.

In her ruling last week, Merrimack County Superior Court Judge Kathleen McGuire agreed with the group, who had challenged the Legislature and Secretary of State's office.

"All credible evidence demonstrates that a small portion of the population in the absence of other information to grade their choices will vote for the first item or name on a list simply because it appears first," McGuire wrote.

But McGuire decided it was the Legislature's prerogative to write such a law. She also felt that the GOP's advantage over other parties wasn't big enough. -- New Hampshire judge upholds ballot order - Boston.com

Posted by Ed at 7:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The American Prospect reports: It's too early to know whether early reports of implausibly high numbers of "yes" voters in Saturday's referendum in Iraq will cast doubt on the legitimacy of the country's new constitution. While there's still hope for a clean victory, sufficient doubts have been cast on the results to open a door for those who would wish to cry foul. Whether whiffs of ballot-stuffing or fraud are validated, the absence of a large-scale international observer contingent on hand to monitor this high-stakes election was a glaring gap in the planning for this pivotal event.

The presence of international observers has become a mainstay of election planning in transitional societies, as their presence deters would-be spoilers from planning shenanigans. Observers can watch balloting, oversee the collection and storage of votes, and monitor counting. Tasks range from reporting on improper campaign activities at polling stations, to preventing people from voting more than once, to imposing fair and transparent methods for tallying votes. International monitors have played essential roles in recent elections in the Palestinian territories, Afghanistan, and Ukraine. -- Ballot Botch

Posted by Ed at 8:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Arizona Republic reports:
The Democrats' dream of using new legislative boundaries to gain a stronger foothold in the Legislature was dashed Tuesday by a court ruling that could affect everything from tax cuts to school choice to access to health care.

A three-member panel of the Arizona Court of Appeals scrapped a redistricting plan that would have created as many as four more competitive, and some say potentially Democratic, legislative districts in Arizona. ...

The three-judge panel reversed a Maricopa County Superior Court judge's ruling that cleared the way for more-competitive districts. Most legislative districts in Arizona are so solidly Republican or Democrat that there is little chance for the party in the minority to win. The plan approved by Judge Kenneth Fields would have increased the number of competitive districts, those where Republican and Democratic registration is relatively even, to seven or eight from four.

The appellate panel ruled that Fields used the wrong "standard of review" for his ruling and that both sides must return to his court to sort the case out. Democrats and Republicans both interpreted that as a Republican victory and said it's a virtual certainty the boundaries favored by Republicans will remain in place for the 2006 election.

The suit had been filed by a coalition of Hispanic Democrats, including legislators, who said minorities' rights had been violated by the lack of competition. -- Court axes Democrats' dreams of redistricting

The opinion is here. Disclosure: I represented three citizens attacking the congressional plan, but my clients did not appeal their portion of the case.

Posted by Ed at 5:56 PM | Permalink

You will notice that I have a new logo over on the right hand column -- Progressive Law Blogs. This is an aggregator blog -- one that gives you the headline and first few lines of the posts from the following blogs:

Armando (from DailyKos)
Balkinization
Discourse.net
Is That Legal?
Nathan Newman
Sentencing Law and Policy
TalkLeft
Votelaw

We expect our merry band to grow and we hope you will stop by frequently to check what's new on our end of the blawgosphere. We have practitioners and professors, and we cover issues like who is coming in (Supreme Court nominations), who is going out (PlameGate), election law, constitutional law, labor law, criminal law and sentencing, and the like.

We hope you find it useful.

Posted by Ed at 4:28 PM | Permalink

Political Equality and Campaign Cash: Should the Supreme Court Uphold Campaign Spending Limits?

Tuesday, October 25, 2005, 2:00 p.m. - 5:00 pm
Butler Board Room, American University
Enter through Mary Graydon Center, Main Campus

For directions, please visit www.american.edu/maps/
To RSVP, please email mgormly@american.edu

Co-sponsored by American University’s Center for Democracy and Election Management, AU Washington College of Law’s Program on Law and Government,
the National Voting Rights Institute, and U.S. PIRG

Panel I: The Legal Arguments For and Against the Vermont Campaign Spending Limits Law
- John Bonifaz, Founder and General Counsel, National Voting Rights Institute, Co-counsel for intervenors in defense of the Vermont law
- James Bopp Jr., General Counsel, James Madison Center for Free Speech, Co-counsel for plaintiffs challenging the Vermont law
- Moderated by Charles Lane, Washington Post

Panel II: The Broader Implications of the Supreme Court’s Review of the Vermont Cases
- Cleta Mitchell, Partner, Foley & Lardner LLP
- Chellie Pingree, President and CEO, Common Cause
- Jamin Raskin, Professor of Law, AU Washington College of Law, Co-director of WCL’s Program on Law and Government
- Bradley Smith, former Chairman, Federal Election Commission
- Moderated by Juan Williams, National Public Radio

Posted by Ed at 3:34 PM | Permalink

The Washington Post reports: D.C. Council member Jack Evans now says that his political action committee paid some of the travel expenses of a close friend when she went on a trade mission to Asia with him last year.

In his weekly newsletter released Friday, Evans (D-Ward 2) said, "One of the expenses that the PAC covered was for the lodging of a friend, who traveled to China as part of an official Washington delegation." ...

An attorney for the PAC, N. William Jarvis, said yesterday that the $6,772.72 reimbursement not only went toward Ralls's lodging but also covered some of her travel inside China and Thailand and perhaps some meals that she and Evans had together. Jarvis said the reimbursement went to Evans because he was the one who covered those costs.

Asked whether it was appropriate to use the PAC to pay for some of Ralls's travel expenses, Jarvis said: "The PAC clearly believes so. It was a business-related trip in the political life of Jack Evans." ...

The campaign finance office, citing the audit it is conducting, said it would have no statement about the PAC's reimbursement for some of Ralls's travel expenses. -- Evans PAC Helped Pay for Friend's Trip

Posted by Ed at 3:30 PM | Permalink

Judge Harold Murphy has enjoined the Georgia law requiring in-person Voters to show photo IDs. Rick Hasen has some details. I will add more when I have a chance to read the opinion.

The opinion is 123 pages long. It is on Pacer in 4 parts, but I had to divide it up for uploading. Here they are:

Part 1a

Part 1b

Part 2a

Part 2b

Part 3a

Part 3b

Part 4a

Part 4b

Posted by Ed at 1:00 PM | Permalink

The Capital reports: Key provisions of the federal Voting Rights Act must be renewed, said a former Republican senator from Maryland heading a panel created to document the need for the measures.

Sen. Charles Mathias Jr., the honorary chairman of a nonpartisan commission investigating voting rights abuses nationwide, said Friday the Voting Rights Act in 1965 changed the status of black voters in American society.

"The Voting Rights Act was really the whole core of the civil rights movement. It made a tremendous improvement," Mr. Mathias said in an interview with Capital News Service. "There was a new recognition of black citizenship."

The National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, an eight-member panel backed by the nonprofit Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, has been gathering testimony on discrimination against minority voters and held its first of 10 hearings in Montgomery, Ala., in March. -- HometownAnnapolis.com, Government - Former Sen. Mathias calls for Voting Rights Act renewal

Posted by Ed at 6:37 PM | Permalink

AP reports: Supporters of the Voting Rights Act acknowledge they know no member of Congress who wants to scrap it. But with hearings beginning Tuesday, Congress is hardly their biggest concern.

The House Judiciary Committee this week holds the first two of what could be more than a dozen congressional hearings into extending key provisions of the 1965 law for another 25 years. While congressional approval may seem inevitable, advocates insist exhaustive hearings are necessary to ensure the extension stands up in court.

"We're trying to build a record," said Laughlin McDonald, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project. "We are anticipating a challenge to what Congress might do." ...

McDonald says he expects to win the political fight in Congress. But if it comes down to a legal fight, all bets are off, which is why the evidence presented at this week's hearings could be critical. -- Congress to Consider Voting Rights Act

Posted by Ed at 6:35 PM | Permalink

AP reports: Iraq's electoral commission said Monday it intended to audit "unusually high" numbers in results coming from most provinces in the country's landmark referendum on the draft constitution. ...

The electoral commission's statement came as Sunni Arab lawmaker Meshaan al-Jubouri claimed fraud had occurred in Saturday's election -- including instances of voting in hotly contested regions by pro-constitution Shiites from other areas -- repeating earlier comments made by other Sunni officials over the weekend.

"Statements coming from most provinces indicating such high numbers ... require us to recheck, compare and audit them, as they are unusually high according to the international standards," the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq said in a statement.

The commission said it would take random samples from some ballot boxes to check the results.

An official with knowledge of the election process said that in some areas the proportion of "yes" or "no" votes seemed unusual. The official cautioned that it was too early to say whether the unusual figures were actually incorrect or what caused the high or low numbers. -- Iraqi electoral commission to audit 'unusually high' numbers in referendum results - Boston.com

Thanks to TalkLeft for the link. MyDD has more details and analysis.

Posted by Ed at 2:56 PM | Permalink

AP reports: Stung by his recent indictment in Texas, Tom Delay is trying to turn his legal woes into a financial boon for his re-election. The former House majority leader is using his congressional campaign to distribute to voters derogatory information about the prosecutor who brought the charges against him and to solicit donations for his re-election.

"Help Tom fight back," reads one of the solicitations on the Web site that voters are being directed to as part of an Internet-based campaign funded by DeLay's re-election committee.http://www.TomDelay.com

Contributors, voters and others who sign up can get regular e-mails and an electronic "toolkit" from DeLay's campaign with the latest disparaging information his legal team has dug up on Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle. -- My Way News

Posted by Ed at 8:10 AM | Permalink

Rob Richie and Steven Hill wrote on TomPaine.com on 27 Sept.: Last week’s release of the report of the election reform commission headed by Jimmy Carter and James Baker has drawn fierce fire from civil rights and electoral reform organizations for recommending that voters be required to present photo identification at the polls. Because the ID recommendations in isolation would shrink the electorate, many reformers have pronounced the Baker-Carter recommendations DOA.

We believe it a mistake to condemn the entire report because of the understandable voter ID objections. Dominated by aging politicians of the creaky two-party duopoly, the Commission on Federal Election Reform certainly was less than bold in many important areas. But building on his vast experience observing elections around the world and experiencing elections in the South, Carter earned bipartisan support for several forward-looking recommendations.

The commission’s boldest call is for universal voter registration, a practice used by many democracies around the world in which all eligible voters are automatically registered to vote. Universal regi