The Tuscaloosa News reports: Local politicians in Greene and Macon counties have joined to file a federal lawsuit claiming that Gov. Bob Riley's bingo raids are perpetuating racial injustice by thwarting the intent of black voters.

The suit, filed Thursday, was intended to reopen Greenetrack and avoid a raid at Victory-Land in Macon County. The raid appears imminent after the state Supreme Court on Friday gave the governor's anti-gambling task force a green light.

Voting rights lawyer Ed Still is one of several attorneys who filed the lawsuit over the June raid and confiscation of more than 800 bingo machines from the Greenetrack bingo casino in Greene County.

Still said on Friday that Riley never got clearance from the U.S. Justice Department to take action against Greene and Macon counties, which have local constitutional amendments approved by voters authorizing bingo.

The lawsuit's premise is simple: Riley's actions reversed voter intentions in both counties, effectively canceling their votes. Read the whole story --> Suit claims bingo raids thwart black voters | TuscaloosaNews.com

Johnson v. Riley (Voting Rights Act Complaint)

Posted by Ed at 5:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Birmingham News reports: A 15-year-old Alabama law that says judges should not hear cases in which one of the parties donated at least $2,000 to their campaigns has never been enforced, locked in a stalemate over whether it first needs to be reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice for evidence that it would not disenfranchise minorities.

A lawsuit filed this week in Washington by an Anniston City Council member tries to settle the question, but it also raises more questions about how an act of the Alabama Legislature can essentially be ignored for so long.

The 1995 law says that a circuit judge who received at least $2,000 from one of the people involved in the case -- or $4,000 for an appellate judge -- must recuse himself in order to avoid the "appearance of impropriety."

Soon after it was passed, the Alabama attorney general's office submitted the law to the Department of Justice, which normally reviews all changes to Alabama's election laws under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. But before the Justice Department could make a decision, the attorney general at the time, Jeff Sessions, withdrew the request for review and notified Washington that the state would enforce the new law and that it didn't need preclearance from the DOJ. -- Read the whole story --> Lawsuit seeks Justice Department review of unenforced 15-year-old state law | al.com

A copy of the complaint is shown below:

Little v. King Complaint

Posted by Ed at 9:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Troy Messenger reports: Pike County District Attorney Gary McAliley said further legal action will be taken against former commissioner Karen Berry "one way or another." ...

Berry was removed from office in October 2009 when a Pike County Circuit Court ruling deemed she won the November 2008 illegally. The case was brought by her opponent now commissioner Oren Fannin who had lost by just six votes. Judge Joel Holley, who ruled in the case, declared that 10 votes cast for Berry were done so illegally.

Also during the course of the trial, allegations of potential voter fraud and perjury were brought forth. At one point Holley declared in court: "Someone here today has committed perjury." Read the whole story --> Troy Messenger | McAliley: Berry to be prosecuted

Posted by Ed at 10:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Montgomery Advertiser reports: Attorneys for incumbent Alabama Supreme Court Judge Tom Parker argued Thursday that one of his opponents in the Republican primary should be struck from the ballot.

Attorney Al Agricola Jr., ar­gued before Montgomery Coun­ty Circuit Court Judge William Shashy that Eric Johnston's name should be removed from state ballots before the Republi­can primary because Johnston missed key filing deadlines.

The suit contends that John­ston was late in filing both an economic interest statement with the Alabama Ethics Com­mission and a campaign finance report with the secretary of state, but that Secretary of State Beth Chapman still put him on the ballot.

Johnston, a Birmingham at­torney, filed his candidate quali­fication papers with the Alaba­ma State Republican Executive Committee to run for the Place 3 seat on the Alabama Supreme Court on April 1. Read the whole article --> Judge asked to remove court candidate from ballot | montgomeryadvertiser.com | Montgomery Advertiser

Posted by Ed at 9:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Doc's Political Parlor reports: Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker not only is running for re-election (we weren't so sure in late March, but then he did qualify on time), he wants a fellow Republican kicked off the primary ballot. And now.

Parker sued challenger Eric Johnston (amongst others) in Montgomery County Circuit Court Friday, alleging Johnston filed ethics and financial disclosures too long after qualifying as a candidate for his name to be certified for the primary ballot. From my read, the suit might just come down to the definition of "day." Read the whole story and download the complaint --> Alabama Politics in Doc's Political Parlor

Posted by Ed at 8:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

TPMMuckraker reports: Five years after he was charged with conspiracy and money laundering in an alleged scheme to funnel corporate money into the 2002 Texas elections, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay may soon stand trial after a ruling by a state appeals court cleared perhaps the final remaining obstacles in the case. ...

DeLay and the two other men allegedly raised $190,000 in corporate money in Texas through a fundraising committee, Texans for a Republican Majority, and sent it the Republican National Committee, which in turn distributed the money to candidates in Texas, where corporate donations are banned.

Overturning a lower court Wednesday, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled in a case brought by DeLay's two co-defendants, John Colyandro and Jim Ellis, clearing the way for the case to move forward. Read the whole story --> DeLay Money Laundering Case May Finally Be Headed To Trial | TPMMuckraker

Posted by Ed at 3:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Talladega Daily Home reports: A city schools board member was recently indicted on charges of campaign form violations.

But several other officials, including candidates for Alabama governor and state school board members, may have made one of the same violations.

Troy "Skip" Smithwick was charged January 29 with failure to file annual campaign contribution reports and improper reporting of contributions. Both charges are Class B misdemeanors under state law.

Smithwick's attorney, Rod Giddens, has filed motions on his behalf to dismiss the claims based on "selective prosecution." Read the whole story including names of late filers --> The Daily Home - Smithwick defends allegations

Posted by Ed at 8:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Peter Overby reports on All Things Considered: A court-appointed officer in Dallas has sued national party committees, both Democratic and Republican, to recover campaign contributions from indicted financier R. Allen Stanford. The money at stake totals $1.6 million.

The officer, known as a receiver, says the money belongs to investors who were allegedly defrauded by Stanford. The disgraced financier is accused of using their money in a Ponzi scheme instead of investing it. ...

The SEC froze Stanford's assets a year ago, well before the Justice Department indicted him. The SEC also asked the federal district court in Dallas to appoint the receiver, who's responsible for recovering other money that Stanford had thrown around in his high-flying lifestyle. -- Read or listen to the whole story --> Courts Seek To Recover Stanford's Political Pledges : NPR

Posted by Ed at 7:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Daily Home reports: City Schools Board Member Troy ?Skip? Smithwick was indicted on two counts relating to campaign contributions by a Talladega County Grand Jury.

A spokesperson for the Talladega County Sheriff?s Department said Smithwick was charged on Friday and released on a $5,000 bond. The two charges were failure to file annual reports and improper reporting of contributions.

Both charges are Class B misdemeanors under state law.

The indictment stems from an investigation into contribution forms submitted by Smithwick during a 2008 campaign. That year, he ran in the Republican primary for the District 3 State School Board seat.

Under state law, all candidates are required to submit their annual contribution reports no later than Jan. 31 of the following year. Smithwick?s final report was dated as received Oct. 6, 2009, by the Secretary of State. -- Read the whole story --> The Daily Home - Grand jury indicts BOE member Misdemeanor charges stem from failure to file campaign forms

Posted by Ed at 4:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Huntsville Times reports: A state appeals court Friday reinstated five felony charges against former Secretary of State Nancy Worley, who is accused of using her office to influence the votes of five employees in her office.

Montgomery County Circuit Judge Truman M. Hobbs Jr. ruled on July 11, 2007, that the law under which Worley was indicted was "overly broad and unconstitutional" as applied in her case. ...

The felony charges stemmed from a law forbidding a public official from using his or her authority or position to try to influence the vote or political action of anyone.

The charges against Worley grew out of campaign letters, campaign contribution envelopes and bumper stickers sent to the five workers.

In her letter - on campaign stationery - Worley wrote, "I will be honored if you will attach the enclosed bumper sticker to your vehicle's bumper or rear window." She also wrote that "if you chose to support another candidate, you have every right to make that decision without any problems from me." -- Read the whole article --> State appeals court reinstates5 felony charges against Worley - al.com

Posted by Ed at 7:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Gadsden Times reports: Evan Smith, a candidate in Cedar Bluff?s District One run-off election, filed a lawsuit in Cherokee County Circuit Court late afternoon Friday asking the court to issue an order to require the Cedar Bluff mayor and council to set a date for the election.

“More than a year after the August 2008 general election and since this summer’s ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court, the town of Cedar Bluff has still not held the run-off elections. The Town of Cedar Bluff is operating with a temporary mayor who is ill, and the people need a new mayor and a district one council person,” the lawsuit reads. It goes on to explain that under normal circumstances, state law requires a run-off election to be held on the sixth Tuesday following the regular election. It asks the court to expedite the case by declaring any previous stay of elections terminated and requiring the town to hold the elections as soon as possible. -- Read the whole story --> New Cedar Bluff suit filed | GadsdenTimes.com | Gadsden Times | Gadsden, AL

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

The Prattville Progress reports: Autauga County Judge of Probate Al Booth granted this week a request for summary judgment from an 18-year-old woman whose voter registration applica­tion was denied in July, and ordered the county's board of registrars to immedi­ately add the woman's name to the coun­ty's list of registered voters.

Booth's decree brought to a close a controversial rejection by registrars of a voter application form filed by Jasmine Dent, a resident student at Tuskegee Uni­versity who moved from Millbrook to Prattville shortly before she started classes.

When Dent attempted on July 6 to reg­ister to vote here, she inadvertently put her Elmore County address on the origi­nal application, then wadded the erro­neous registration form and tossed it into a trash can at the board of registrars office.

She completed a second form, provid­ing the correct residency information, but Registrar Bobby Wise retrieved the original and noted on the second form that the document should not be approv­ed because it was "fraudulent," although he refused to specify upon what grounds his decision was based. Fellow registrar Joan Hamburger also signed off on the denial. -- Read the whole story --> montgomeryadvertiser.com :: Judge: Add woman to voter rolls

Posted by Ed at 12:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Prattville Progress reports: An 18-year-old local woman whose voter registration application was reject­ed by county registrars because she inad­vertently listed her former address on the document, has appealed the decision to the Autauga County Judge of Probate.

Judge Al Booth confirmed Thursday that his office had received a letter from Jasmine Dent, who asked that Booth overturn the board of registrar's deci­sion that listed her attempt at joining lo­cal voter rolls as a "fraudulent" applica­tion. ...

Booth did provide a requested copy of the Sept. 4 letter, which requested a sum­mary judgment in her favor, based on the actions of board member Bobby Wise, who rejected the application on the basis of the incorrect address and telephone number Dent listed on her initial voter registration form.

Dent, who filed an amended applica­tion minutes after Wise pointed out the inaccuracies, expressed on paper her be­lief that the registrar could have resolved the issue by allowing her to file a cor­rected form. -- Read the whole story at --> montgomeryadvertiser.com :: Appeal filed in voter application rejection

Posted by Ed at 10:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Gadsden Times reports: A new lawsuit relating to the 2008 Cedar Bluff municipal elections was filed Wednesday in the Circuit Court of Cherokee County.

The suit, filed by Evan Smith, is a complaint for declaratory, injunctive and other relief in regard to the fact that three of the candidates in the August 2008 election have not yet filed their financial reports (contributions and expenses) for 2008.

The Fair Campaign Practices Act (Title 17-5 of the Alabama Code) requires a candidate to file an annual report listing donors who contribute more than $100 to the candidate’s campaign, the names of persons to whom expenditures more than $100 have been made, the grand total of receipts for the campaign during the year, the grand total of expenses during the year, the amount and nature of debts and obligations owed and how they were extinguished. -- Read the full article at --> Lawsuit related to 2008 Cedar Bluff elections filed

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

The Tuscaloosa News reports: Valada Paige Banks on Monday became the second woman charged with felony voter fraud in Hale County to plead guilty to a misdemeanor.

Banks, 46, received a 12-month suspended sentence after admitting to third-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument.

She will not have to spend any time in jail, but was placed on probation for two years by retired Chambers County Circuit Judge Howard Bryan, who was appointed to hear the case. She also was assessed $400 in court costs.

Rosie Lyles, 68, pleaded guilty to the same charge on Aug. 31 and received a similar sentence. Both women were indicted in August 2007 on multiple felony counts of promoting illegal absentee voting during special elections in Hale County in 2004 and 2005. -- Read the whole story --> Hale County voter fraud defendant pleads guilty | TuscaloosaNews.com | The Tuscaloosa News | Tuscaloosa, AL

Posted by Ed at 5:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP reports that the recusal of three members of (of five) on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals has delayed the appeal of the State in former Secretary of State Nancy Worley's criminal case. Read the full story --> Recusals delay ex-secretary of state's case

Posted by Ed at 1:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

TPMmuckraker reports: Has the New Hampshire phone-jamming case finally come to a quiet end?

Federal prosecutors have dropped their case against former regional NRSC official James Tobin in connection with a GOP plot to jam the phone lines of the New Hampshire Democratic party on Election Day 2002, reports the Associated Press.

Tobin had been acquitted of involvement in the plot -- for which two GOP consultants have served jail time -- but was being tried on new charges of lying to investigators. A court dismissed those charges, and last week an appeals court rejected prosecutors' appeal. --> Read the whole report at Feds Drop New Hampshire Phone-Jamming Case | TPMMuckraker

Posted by Ed at 3:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Danielle Citron writes on Concurring Opinions: On Monday, a New Jersey Superior Court wrapped up a fifteen-week trial in Gusciora v. Corzine. There, plaintiffs challenged New Jersey’s use of e-voting machines on the grounds that the machines cannot be trusted to count the votes accurately given how easily they can be hacked. The trial centered on security problems of the state’s 11,000 e-voting machines manufactured by Sequoia Voting Systems. Plaintiffs argued that the machines are vulnerable to physical and digital attacks that could compromise elections. Expert witnesses in the case included Professor Andrew Appel from Princeton University, Dr. Roger Johnston of Argonne National Laboratory, and Professor Wayne Wolf of Georgia Institute of Technology, who testified that vote-stealing software could be installed by attackers without specialized training or expensive equipment. At trial, the experts demonstrated multiple hacks of the machines’ source code and user interface, attacks on the machines’ circuitry, and methods for bypassing New Jersey’s physical security measures. ---> Read the rest at E-Voting Machines on Trial

Posted by Ed at 8:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Gadsden Times reports: In an opinion released Friday, all nine justices of the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee County Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction to decide the election contest case that evolved from the Cedar Bluff municipal election of Aug. 26, 2008.

After the results were certified in Cedar Bluff's general election on Sept. 2, three candidates - two for council positions and one for mayor- filed a contest suit saying that absentee ballots were not handled properly and that those votes should not be counted. ...

Justice Michael Bolin, in writing the court's opinion, said an election contest cannot be brought until a candidate is "declared elected" after a run-off election. In addition, he emphasized that an election contest cannot be brought in any court unless allowed by state statute.
Bolin wrote, "It is well settled that the Legislature, by enacting Title 17-16-44, has restricted the jurisdiction of the circuit courts in regard to elections." -- Cedar Bluff election ruling overturned | GadsdenTimes.com | Gadsden Times | Gadsden, AL

Posted by Ed at 8:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP reports: Republican governors offer differing views on major voting rights case at Supreme Court -- Differing views in GOP on voting rights case | TPM News Pages

Note: Because the AP is threatening legal action against those who quote from their stories, I will be mentioning fewer AP stories and will give no more than the headline.

Posted by Ed at 9:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Washington Post reports: America's next great battle over civil rights could hardly have a less controversial flash point: the benign decision to move the neighborhood polling place from Jack Stueber's garage to the local

elementary school.

But because Stueber's garage is in Texas, and because Texas once systematically discriminated against its black and Latino citizens, and because Congress wants to make sure that it never does again, elections in the handsome neighborhood called Canyon Creek are a federal issue.

The Supreme Court will consider this month whether the neighborhood's tiny utility board should continue to be among the states and local governments that bear the Voting Rights Act's heaviest burden -- pre-clearance by federal authorities for even the smallest changes in election laws and procedures -- and whether Congress exceeded its authority in 2006 by extending the restrictions for 25 years.

Each time the court has reviewed the law since it was first passed 44 years ago, it has agreed with Congress that the restrictions are warranted. But this time around, a question hangs over the case that is not found in law books:

Is a law conceived in the time of Jim Crow still relevant in the age of Barack Obama? -- Supreme Court to Weigh Relevance of Voting Rights Act in Obama Era - washingtonpost.com

Posted by Ed at 4:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A group of veteran voting-rights attorneys lead by Julius Chambers, former director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, has filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in Northwest Austin Municipal Unitily District v. Holder. The attorneys argue:

In comparison to Appellant’s limited familiarity with elections, attorney amici collectively have more than 200 years of experience litigating voting rights cases in covered and non-covered jurisdictions throughout the country. This experience has led amici to recognize the persistent need for timely enforcement capable of deterring illegal voting schemes before they are implemented—a task for which caseby- case litigation under Section 2 is ill-suited, but for which Section 5 was designed.

Were Section 5 unavailable, there would be a significant increase in the number of discriminatory voting changes that voters and jurisdictions would be forced to address through litigation. But Section 2 cannot substitute for the prophylactic function of Section 5. In practice, amici have seen Section 2 and Section 5 operate in the complementary fashion that Congress intended. Where minority voters in covered jurisdictions cannot find a lawyer or afford to pay one, Section 5 provides the means to redress new violations of their rights. And where minority voters are able to get their day in court, Section 5 provides the assurance that their hard-won and expensive battles will not have been fought in vain if a jurisdiction repeats similar violations.

Too many discriminatory voting changes would remain unchallenged if Section 5 were invalidated. For individual minority voters, the cost and effort required to pursue Section 2 cases are great barriers to private enforcement, a problem made more acute by the small number of practitioners in covered jurisdictions who are willing and able to take such cases. This creates a perverse incentive—all too often realized—for officials to continue suspect practices because they know most voters cannot challenge them. In contrast, Section 5 serves as a deterrent to such practices.

Amici’s lengthy experience in the voting rights arena shows the importance of Congress’s considered decision to reauthorize Section 5. Without it, minority voters will fail to realize the full promise of the Voting Rights Act.

The amici include the following lawyers:James U. Blacksher, Armand Derfner, Anita Earls, Robert McDuff, Edward Still, and Ellis Turnage. The lawyers are represented by William D. Kissinger, Sujal J. Shah, Erin Shannon-Conroy, Perry M. Grossman, and Sarah L. Bishop of Bibgham McCutchen LLP.

Posted by Ed at 8:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The New York Times reports: A quirky case about a slashing documentary attacking Hillary Rodham Clinton would not seem to be the most obvious vehicle for a fundamental re-examination of the interplay between the First Amendment and campaign finance laws.

But by the end of an exceptionally lively argument at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, it seemed at least possible that five justices were prepared to overturn or significantly limit parts of the court’s 2003 decision upholding the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which regulates the role of money in politics.

Several of the court’s more conservative justices reacted with incredulity to a series of answers from a government lawyer about the scope of Congressional authority to limit political speech. The lawyer, Malcolm L. Stewart, said Congress has the power to ban political books, signs and Internet videos, if they are paid for by corporations and distributed not long before an election.

Mr. Stewart added that there was no difference in principle between the 90-minute documentary about Mrs. Clinton, “Hillary: The Movie,” and a 30-second television advertisement.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the government’s uncompromising position could have dire consequences for the McCain-Feingold law. -- Justices Consider Campaign Finance Law

NPR's report is here.

Posted by Ed at 6:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Supreme Court has decided Bartlett v. Strickland, No. 07-689. The Justices divided 3-2-4.

The Three (Kennedy, C.J. Roberts, and Alito) "concluded that §2 does not require state officials to draw election-district lines to allow a racial minority that would make up less than 50 percent of the voting-age population in the redrawn district to join with crossover voters to elect the minority’s candidate of choice. ... This holding does not consider the permissibility of crossover districts as a matter of legislative choice or discretion. Section 2 allows States to choose their own method of complying with the Voting Rights Act, which may include drawing crossover districts. See Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U. S. 461, 480–482. Moreover, the holding shouldnot be interpreted to entrench majority-minority districts by statutory command, for that, too, could pose constitutional concerns. See, e.g., Miller v. Johnson, 515 U. S. 900. Such districts are only re-quired if all three Gingles factors are met and if §2 applies based onthe totality of the circumstances."

The Two (Thomas and Scalia) said "the text of §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 does notauthorize any vote dilution claim, regardless of the size of the minor-ity population in a given district."

The Four (Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer) filed one dissent in which all joined and Justices Ginsburg and Breyer filed additional dissents. Justice Souter's opinion stated, "I would hold that ... a district may be a minority-opportunity district so long as a cohesive minority population is large enough to elect its chosen candidate when combined with a reliable number of crossover voters from an otherwise polarized majority."

Justice Ginsburg said, "Today’s decision returns the ball to Congress’ court. The Legislature has just cause to clarify beyond debate the appropriate reading of §2." [Can the introduction of a Voting Rights Act of 2009 be far?]

Justice Breyer's opinion asks, "Why not use a numerical gateway rule that looks more directly at the relevant question: Is the minority bloc large enough, is it cohesive enough, is the necessary majority crossover vote small enough, so that the minority (tending to vote cohesively) can likely vote its preferred candidate (rather than a consensus candidate) into office?" and proposes a a new test: "Suppose we pick a numeri-cal ratio that requires the minority voting age population to be twice as large as the percentage of majority crossovervotes needed to elect the minority’s preferred candidate.We would calculate the latter (the percentage of majoritycrossover votes the minority voters need) to take accountof both the percentage of minority voting age population in the district and the cohesiveness with which they vote."

Posted by Ed at 10:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Fifth Circuit has partially reversed the dismissal of a Section 5 case about the allocation of delegates to the Texas Democratic Party convention. The opinion begins:

Plaintiffs-Appellants LULAC of Texas, the Mexican American Bar Association of Houston, Texas, and several individuals who reside in various Texas senatorial districts appeal from the dismissal by a single-judge district court of their claims under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act against Defendants-Appellees the State of Texas and the Texas Democratic Party (the “Party”), contending that the judge should have referred their claims to a threejudge court. Plaintiffs’ suit challenges the Party’s method of allocating delegates to its nominating conventions based on raw voter turnout, a procedure that was not precleared by the United States Attorney General or the District Court for the District of Columbia. Reviewing the dismissal de novo, ... we AFFIRM the dismissal for the State, REVERSE the dismissal for the Party, and REMAND ....

Posted by Ed at 7:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Bangor Daily News reports: A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed the most recent charges against James Tobin, 48, of Bangor that alleged he lied to the FBI about his role in a phone jamming scheme on Election Day 2002 in New Hampshire.

U.S. District Judge George Z. Singal agreed with attorneys for the former GOP political organizer that bringing the charges in U.S. District Court in Maine after he had been vindicated on far more serious ones in New Hampshire qualified as a vindictive prosecution.

“The vindictive prosecution doctrine imposes critical ‘constitutional limits’ upon the exercise of prosecutorial discretion,” Singal wrote in his 12-page decision. “Those limits protect all current and future criminal defendants, including those whose conduct may be properly described as ‘insidious’ or ‘thoroughly bad.’ And by filing more severe charges following Tobin’s successful appeal without sufficient justification, the government exceeded those here.” ...

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned his conviction in 2007. It found that the telephone harassment statute was not a good fit for what Tobin had been convicted of doing. ...

The latest charges against Tobin alleged that he lied when he told the FBI that it was McGee’s idea to contact Raymond for assistance in executing the plan. Tobin also lied, according to the indictment, when he told the FBI that Raymond and McGee already had spoken when Tobin talked with Raymond about the plan. -- District judge clears Tobin

Hat tip to TPM Muckraker.

Posted by Ed at 11:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Birmingham News reports: A group of Alabama voters who say the state's constitution was never legally ratified by the people are asking for a new vote on it or on a new constitution.

The voters this month sued several state officials in Jefferson County Circuit Court's Bessemer division, claiming they violated voter rights by failing to ensure that Alabama's 108-year-old constitution is valid. State historians say the 1901 referendum on the document was plagued with voter fraud.

The lawsuit is the latest approach at forcing reform of a lengthy state constitution that is riddled with racist language, offers little power to local governments and imposes a tax system that critics call immoral. Efforts to change it at the legislative level for years have been unsuccessful. ...

Wayne Flynt, a retired Auburn University professor who has written extensively on Alabama history, said the constitution never passed. The official election results showed black voters supported it - but such support was unlikely, since a vote for the document was a vote to disenfranchise blacks, he wrote in an affidavit attached to the complaint. -- Group of Alabama voters challenges state Constitution - al.com

Note: The case is Tommie Lee Houston v. Troy King, CV 2009-139 (Jeff.Co. Cir.Ct, Bessemer). No images are yet available on AlaCourt.com.

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

The Montgomery Advertiser reports: A former mayoral candidate says he isn't filing a lawsuit to be allowed back into the campaign. The 29-year-old says he wants the money instead.

Willie D. Knight, who is asking for $20 million in damages, is contending that the Montgomery Election Center discriminated against young candidates during the two-week qualifying period.

All three candidates younger than 30 -- Knight, Byron Berry and Jamel Brown -- did not have the requisite 340 signatures on their petition because many of the petitioners either were not registered voters in Montgomery or had not updated their addresses. ...

Knight filed a four-page hand-written complaint on Friday. He included a copy of his petition, which is more than 60 pages. As of Tuesday, the case had not been assigned to a judge.

Knight alleges that the Montgomery Election Center staff members were negligent when they discredited certain petitioners. Some of the petitioners voted in the November general election, Knight claims. -- Former mayoral candidate sues for $20 million | montgomeryadvertiser.com | Montgomery Advertiser

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

The New York Times reports: The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would decide whether Congress overstepped its constitutional authority in 2006 by extending a central provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The plaintiff in the case, a Texas municipal utility district, has argued that Congress did not take sufficient account of more than four decades of progress toward racial equality that culminated in the recent election of the nation’s first black president.

The court’s decision, expected by June, will help define the Roberts court. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. opposed efforts to expand the voting rights law in 1982 as a young lawyer in the Reagan administration and has expressed skepticism on the court about racial classifications made by the government. The decision will also have significant practical consequences for elections in 16 states. ...

The case concerns the requirement in Section 5 of the law that certain state and local governments, mostly in the South, must obtain permission, or “preclearance,” from the Justice Department or a federal court before making changes that affect voting. -- Supreme Court Takes Voting Rights Case - NYTimes.com

Posted by Ed at 10:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP reports: Three Staten Island men, riled by Barack Obama's victory, spent election night hunting down black people to beat up and yelled insults about the president-elect, federal prosecutors said yesterday.

The men beat a Liberian immigrant teenager, pushed a black man to the ground, and drove their car over a white man they thought was black, according to the indictment.

Ralph Nicoletti, 18, Michael Contreras, 18, and Brian Carranza, 21, were arrested early yesterday. All three pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiracy to interfere with voting rights. -- 3 charged in election night attacks - The Boston Globe

Posted by Ed at 6:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Montgomery Advertiser reports: An Elmore County man is suing the state's top election official over a law that imposes residency requirements on candidates running for circuit judge in the 19th Judicial Circuit.

Attorney Jerry M. Blevins filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Beth Chapman because of a recent change to state law that would require him to live in a specific county in the 19th Judicial Circuit to be a candidate for one of the three judge positions.

The 19th Judicial Circuit covers Autauga, Chilton and Elmore counties, and an amendment that passed the state Legislature during the 2008 regular session requires judges to live in the county over which they preside.

Blevins wants to run for the No. 3 judge seat in 2010, but because of the change to the law, he would have to live in Chilton County to be eligible.

Under the new amendment, Blevins would only be eligible to run for seat No. 1 because he lives in Elmore County. -- Man sues to be in race for judgeship | montgomeryadvertiser.com | Montgomery Advertiser

Posted by Ed at 5:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Fulton County Daily Report reports: While the nation prepares to inaugurate a new president this month, at the federal appeals court in Atlanta a few Democrats are still arguing about the presidential primary process.

On Thursday the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear a challenge to the way the Democratic Party chooses its presidential nominee. Victor DiMaio, a Florida-based Democratic political consultant, contends that the party violates the federal Constitution by taking states' racial makeup and other factors into account in its rules on presidential primary dates. ...

In May, U.S. District Judge Richard A. Lazzara of Tampa rejected DiMaio's new complaint, granting summary judgment to the party. Within days, the Florida delegates were no longer critical because Hillary Clinton began backing Barack Obama, and in August all Florida's delegates received a full vote at the convention.

But in their 11th Circuit brief, the party's lawyers write that they can't say the issue DiMaio raises won't come up again, as the state law setting the primary date ahead of what party rules allow remains in effect -- which DiMaio calls a "train wreck" waiting to happen. The 11th Circuit recently requested additional briefing on whether the case is moot given that the election is over, said DiMaio's lawyer, Michael A. Steinberg of Tampa. -- Law.com - Primary Election Battle Continues in Federal Court

Posted by Ed at 9:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore, issued eight years ago this month, was widely understood to work like that tape recorder in “Mission: Impossible.” It was meant to produce a president and then self-destruct. ...

But now, as the petitioner leaves the national stage, Bush v. Gore is turning out to have lasting value after all. “You’re starting to see courts invoke it,” said Samuel Issacharoff, a law professor at New York University, “and you’re starting to see briefs cite it.”

Divorced from its earlier context, the growing point of the case is to impose order on often chaotic election processes in the states.

“Bush v. Gore introduced an important idea,” Professor Issacharoff said. “It is that the political process has rules, the rules have to be fairly applied and that those rules need to be known up front.” -- Bush v. Gore Set to Outlast Its Beneficiary

Posted by Ed at 6:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

New York Law Journal reports: Nora S. Anderson, 56, who is scheduled to become Manhattan surrogate on Jan. 1, pleaded not guilty Wednesday to charges that she falsely reported $250,000 pumped into her campaign as her own money when in fact the funds came from Seth Rubenstein, the lawyer in whose office she has worked for the last nine years. (See the indictment.)

Rubenstein, 81, a well known trust and estates lawyer based in Brooklyn, likewise pleaded not guilty to the same charges of making contributions above campaign spending limits and concealing the source of the contributions. ...

Both Anderson and Rubenstein were charged in a 10-count indictment and face a maximum prison term of 1 1/3 to four years if convicted of any of the top six counts, all Class E felonies.

Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau said the "crux of the case" is that the two sought to evade campaign spending limits that apply to Rubenstein as a contributor but not to Anderson as the candidate by making it appear that his contributions had in fact come from her. -- Law.com - Not Guilty Pleas Entered Over Judge-Elect's Campaign Contributions

Posted by Ed at 6:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP reports: The Justice Department has sued Alabama officials for allegedly violating a law that protects absentee voters overseas, including those serving in the military.

The lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Montgomery is against the state of Alabama and its top election official, Secretary of State Beth Chapman. State officials are accused in the suit of failing to file reports on overseas absentee ballots as required by a 2002 federal law. -- WAAYTV.com - Huntsville, Alabama - News Weather, Sports | Justice Dept. sues Alabama on overseas vote report

Note: the case is not yet available on Pacer. I will post the complaint when it is available. Perhaps one of my friends in the Department of Justice will email me a copy. The complaint is now available on the Voting Section website. Hat tip to John Tanner for the link.

Posted by Ed at 6:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Birmingham News reports: Some black Bessemer residents who voted by absentee ballot in the contentious 1998 Jefferson County sheriff's race filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday, claiming former Sheriff Jim Woodward and others illegally investigated them in his bid to challenge election results.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Birmingham on behalf of Russell Trusser, Geneva Trusser, Telly Trusser and others, contending their civil rights were violated. Lawyers are seeking class-action status for the suit.

The suit relies on allegations stemming from federal charges filed against Woodward and lawyer Albert Jordan in 2000. A jury convicted the men in January 2006 of charges they conspired to run criminal history checks on absentee ballot voters to use in Woodward's 1998 election contest against Democratic challenger Mike Hale.

Jordan and Woodward continue to maintain their innocence and appealed their convictions. A judge sentenced Woodward and Jordan each to six months probation, but said, at that sentencing, he would've found the men not guilty based on the evidence.

Woodward, who maintains the federal investigation against him was politically motivated, said Tuesday a lawsuit with similar allegations already has been tossed out of court. He said the allegations are too old in the current suit. Woodward said he will consult with his attorney and is considering a countersuit. -- Federal lawsuit claims former Jefferson County sheriff, others illegally targeted some absentee voters in Bessemer in 1998 - al.com

The complaint may be viewed here.

Posted by Ed at 9:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Mobile Press-Register reports: Officers with Alabama Attorney General Troy King's office have seized all city and county records pertaining to the Oct. 7 municipal runoff in Evergreen, officials said Friday.

Joy Patterson, a spokeswoman for King's office, said investigators served two subpoenas Oct. 28 that ordered any and all documents relating to the runoff to be surrendered to the state office.

One subpoena was served on the city clerk for municipal records, and the other on the county's chief registrar, Patterson said. Patterson declined to say why the records were seized.

The hotly contested Evergreen mayoral race ended with incumbent Mayor Larry Fluker winning by two votes over challenger Pete Wolff III in a campaign that divided the town along racial lines. Fluker, elected four years ago, is the town's first black mayor. Wolff is white.

Both sides raised claims of illegal tactics and voter fraud during the campaign and after the votes were counted Oct. 7. At the end of that evening, Wolff finished ahead by two votes. Ten uncounted challenged ballots surfaced, and when seven were ruled valid, the race flipped in Fluker's favor. -- Runoff voting records seized by attorney general - al.com

Disclosure: I represent Mayor Fluker in the election contest.

Posted by Ed at 3:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Birmingham News reports: The federal government filed a lawsuit against the city of Calera in U.S. District Court, alleging the city's new voting boundaries violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965. ...

The lawsuit says Calera's new voting districts, which eliminated the city's sole mostly minority district, were not approved before the municipal elections. The Justice Department has said the new boundaries may be unfair to minorities.

The lawsuit confirms that the newly elected officials in Calera will not be able to take office on Monday, unless the districts are approved before then. The sitting mayor and council will remain in office until the lawsuit is resolved. ...

During a recent meeting, Ellis told city officials the Justice Department does not trust the population and race data submitted by Calera. The Justice Department has asked the city for more specific information. -- U.S. government sues Calera over voting districts - al.com

The article does not explain that the City has entered into a consent decree. Both the complaint and the consent decree are attached.

Posted by Ed at 6:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports: The state of Georgia must allow persons whose citizenship has been questioned in a new voter verification system the opportunity to cast a ballot in the Nov. 4 elections, a three-judge court ruled Monday.

The court also ordered Secretary of State Karen Handel to “make diligent and immediate efforts to notify, in a uniform manner, every person whose voter registration presently remains flagged.” Those voters must be told that they can vote by a “challenged ballot,” if necessary, and that there is a discrepancy in the voters’ registration information, the court said. -- Court: ‘Flagged’ citizens may vote

The opinion and order of the Court is here.

Posted by Ed at 2:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The New York Times reports: Concerned that voting machine breakdowns could cause long lines on Election Day, particularly in minority neighborhoods, several groups filed a lawsuit on Thursday to force Pennsylvania election officials to provide paper ballots when half the machines in a precinct have failed.

The top election official, Secretary of the Commonwealth Pedro A. Cortés, has directed poll workers to provide paper ballots to a precinct only when all of its touch-screen voting machines are broken.

The lawsuit was filed in Philadelphia by the Pennsylvania N.A.A.C.P.; the Election Reform Network, a nonpartisan group; and a coalition of individual voters. It asks a federal judge to declare Mr. Cortés’s directive unconstitutional on the grounds that it puts an undue burden on residents who may have to wait hours to vote.

Mr. Cortés said that current safeguards should ensure an efficient election and that forcing a change could confuse poll workers who had already been trained. -- Lawsuit Is Filed Over Ballot Rule in Pennsylvania - NYTimes.com

Posted by Ed at 6:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The New York Times reports: The Supreme Court returned Tuesday to the question of how to take account of race in drawing election districts, hearing arguments in a case that is likely to resolve a question the court has left open five times: Must a minority group constitute a majority in a given district before an important protection of the federal Voting Rights Act kicks in?

Christopher G. Browning Jr., North Carolina’s solicitor general, defended the decision of officials there to violate a state law in order to create a district that included about 39 percent of the black voting-age population, saying the Voting Rights Act required the creation of the district to prevent the dilution of the minority group’s ability to elect a representative of its choice.

The fact that the district did not include a majority of black voters was a virtue, Mr. Browning said. True, he said, minority voters would be able to elect a representative of their choice only with the aid of voters from other groups. “Coalition districts help us in reaching the point where race will no longer matter,” Mr. Browning said. -- Justices Weigh Race in North Carolina Case - NYTimes.com

The Washington Post also reports on the case: The court's decision will affect the redrawing of political lines after the 2010 census and is of particular concern to civil rights leaders and the Congressional Black Caucus. Nearly half of the caucus's members were elected from coalition districts, and some worry that redistricting could threaten them or future black candidates if states do not fear lawsuits over reapportionment decisions.

If yesterday's oral argument is any indication, the court may be moving in a different direction. Several conservative justices indicated support for maintaining the "50 percent rule" supported by most lower courts -- that vote-dilution lawsuits can be filed only when minorities can show that they would constitute more than half the population if the district in question were redrawn again.

Justice Antonin Scalia said North Carolina's position would lead to more litigation and "inject" the courts "into this very political game much more frequently than we now are."

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the success of coalition districts in electing black candidates "would be evidence that the Voting Rights Act has succeeded, rather than evidence that you need to apply it more broadly."

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often the deciding vote when the court splits along ideological lines, sarcastically referred to coalition districts as a "brave new world" where "race is the key factor" in drawing political lines. -- Justices Hear Voting Rights Case

Posted by Ed at 10:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

TPM Muckraker reports: Former Republican operative James Tobin has been indicted for making false statements to the FBI in connection with the bureau's investigation of a phone-jamming scheme in New Hampshire in 2002, according to court filings examined by TPMmuckraker.

... Here's the indictment. It contains two counts, both related to making false statements to the FBI during its investigation into the New Hampshire GOP's effort to jam the phones of the Democratic Party on Election Day 2002.

It charges, in part:

"Tobin stated that when he first called Allen Raymond to discuss the phone-jamming scheme, Raymond and Charles McGee had already spoken with each other about the plans. In fact, as Tobin well knew, Tobin spoke with Raymond before Raymond was contacted by McGee, and Tobin requested that Raymond assist McGee with the plan."

McGee, the former executive director of the New Hampshire GOP, and Raymond, a GOP consultant, both were convicted and served jail time in connection with the scheme.

But Tobin's own 2005 conviction relating to the scheme was thrown out on appeal in 2007, and he was acquitted. -- TPMMuckraker | Talking Points Memo | Ex-GOP Operative in New Hampshire Indicted

Posted by Ed at 11:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP reports: A federal judge on Thursday ordered Ohio's top elections official to verify the identity of newly registered voters by matching them with other government documents.

U.S. District Judge George C. Smith in Columbus ruled that Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner must perform verification required by the Help America Vote Act. That includes matching new registrants' information against information in databases maintained by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles or the Social Security Administration.

The order was the result of a lawsuit the Ohio Republican Party filed against Brunner, a Democrat. ...

Brunner also was ordered to establish a process by which Ohio's 88 county election boards can access information generated by the checks. -- Ohio Secretary Of State Must Verify Registrations - KYPost.com

Posted by Ed at 7:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP reports: Voter registrars could have to wait awhile longer to learn which felons can vote — and just what constitutes "moral turpitude" — because a judge said Wednesday she may dismiss a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union over the issue.

With voter registration at record levels, county voter registrars have been struggling to figure out which ex-felons can sign up and which can't.

During a hearing Wednesday, Montgomery Circuit Judge Tracy McCooey told ACLU attorneys she is troubled that the ACLU's three plaintiffs filed suit before they filled out voter registration forms and were officially rejected by county voter registrars. ...

The ACLU filed the lawsuit in July on behalf of three ex-felons who want to vote in the Nov. 4 presidential election. One of the three had actually tried to register in Jefferson County, but was never given a form because a registrar told her she couldn't vote. -- Judge may dismiss Ala. lawsuit over felon voting

Posted by Ed at 6:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Birmingham News reports: The picture of who will represent District 1 on the Jefferson County Commission became crystal clear for the first time in a year following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling this week in the last lawsuit over the issue.

George Bowman will remain in office until after the Nov. 4 election results are certified, lawyers in the case said Tuesday. Then William Bell will take over.

Bell, a Birmingham city councilman, is the sole candidate for the commission seat on the Nov. 4 ballot. Bell's term will end in 2010, when all five commission seats go before voters.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by Gov. Bob Riley in a lawsuit challenging his right to appoint Bowman to the commission. -- William Bell to take office after Nov. 4 - al.com

Posted by Ed at 4:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Huntsville Times reports: Secretary of State Beth Chapman agreed Thursday to give the Alabama Democratic and Republican parties updated voter lists as part of a settlement reached in Montgomery County Circuit Court. ...

The Democratic Party sued Chapman after she had refused to give the party a second voter list this year, saying that she would have to charge the party 1 cent for each of the state's more than 2.94 million registered voters on the list, or more than $29,000.

Judge William Shashy said he would sign an order later to validate the agreement.

But in an agreement worked out behind closed doors, Chapman said she would give the list to both parties by 5 p.m. Thursday. And she agreed from now on to give both parties copies of the voter lists before each primary election and each general election. -- Parties will get new list of voters - al.com

Posted by Ed at 7:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Dothan Eagle reports: The NAACP Legal Defense Fund expects a federal court to overturn Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner Richard Allen’s recent decision to prevent the Rev. Kenneth Glasgow’s drive to register eligible prisoners to vote.

The Legal Defense Fund filed suit in Montgomery’s U.S. District Court on Tuesday, calling Allen’s decision “arbitrary and unconstitutional,” according to Ryan P. Haygood, co-director of the fund’s Political Participation Group.

Allen’s decision came after being contacted by Alabama Republican Party Chairman Mike Hubbard, who says he will never support voting rights for prisoners, even though state law allows non-violent offenders to vote. -- Civil rights group fights for prisoners’ votes

Here are the complaint, exhibits A, B, and C.

Posted by Ed at 7:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Chicago Tribune reports: In a furious, multistate campaign raging far from television cameras and cable TV chatter, scores of lawyers are arguing over the voting rights of perhaps millions of Americans who plan to cast ballots in the presidential election.

This is the courtroom campaign beneath the presidential campaign, fought in politically strategic states including Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin and others. The outcome of battles over voter registration, absentee ballots and the integrity of state voting lists could prove to be decisive in states where the margin of victory is expected to be slim.

"Voter registration is likely to be the issue of the 2008 election season," said Daniel Tokaji, an election law specialist at Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.

The legal battles come as millions of previously disinterested Americans, most of them Democrats energized by the primary contest between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have registered to vote in November's election. With Democrats emboldened by large gains in voter registration and Republicans relying on an effective get-out-the-vote machine, the election could turn on pre-election arguments over who is allowed to vote. -- Voting goes to court: Registration lawsuits could shape election

Posted by Ed at 7:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The NAACP Legal Defense announces: The NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) filed a lawsuit today in federal court on behalf of Reverend Kenneth Glasgow to allow him to resume registering eligible voters currently incarcerated in Alabama's correctional facilities.

With just 24 days remaining before voter registration closes to citizens seeking to participate in the November 4 elections, the lawsuit challenges the decision of Richard Allen, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, to rescind Reverend Glasgow's access to incarcerated individuals who are eligible to vote under Alabama law. -- NAACP Legal Defense Fund -- Cases

Posted by Ed at 6:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Star-Tribune reports: The nation's major television news networks and the Associated Press filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Minnesota on Monday, arguing that a new law that keeps exit pollsters at least 100 feet away from voting places is unconstitutional and interferes with their right to do their job.

ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News and the Associated Press insist that the law is too restrictive. The law had earlier prohibited exit polling within 100 feet of where actual voting takes place. But the language was amended in April to read: "No one except an election official or an individual who is waiting to register or to vote shall stand within 100 feet of the building in which a polling place is to be located."

Susan Buckley, an attorney representing the news organizations, said no other state has such a restriction.

The news organizations are asking the court to declare the law unconstitutional and to allow exit polling within the 100-foot zone. Moving pollsters outside the zone, the news organizations argue, could make exit polls less accurate and less helpful to the public. -- Networks sue Minnesota over exit poll limits

Posted by Ed at 7:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

SCOTUSblog reports: Urging the Supreme Court to curb Congress’ powers to enforce the voting rights declared by the Constitution’s Fifteenth Amendment, a public utility district in Texas on Monday filed a sweeping challenge to the constitutionality of the extension of the federal Voting Rights Act’s long-controversial Section 5. In an appeal that will require five Justices to resolve, the district filed in Northwest Austin Municipal District Number One v. Mukasey. ...

“The Court should find,” the appeal argued, “that the 2006 enactment of Section 5, which consigns broad swaths of the Nation to apparently perpetual federal receivership based on 40-year-old evidence, fails” the Court’s strict test for judging congressional authority to implement the Reconstruction-era Amendments. That test is whether a federal law to enforce one of those Amendments is “congruent” with and “proportional” to the problem Congress addressed — a test that the Court adopted for reviewing laws passed under the Fourteenth Amendment. -- Court asked to strike down vote law

The post has links to the JS and the decision below.

Posted by Ed at 8:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A Birmingham News report begins: The Jefferson County Republican Party asked a judge Wednesday to include Andrew Smith's name on the November ballot for the unexpired assistant tax assessor's term in Bessemer although Smith didn't qualify for the spot.

The party is seeking to overturn a decision made in July by Jefferson County Probate Judge Alan King who determined that Smith's name could not be added to the ballot because he missed the qualifying deadline. Smith qualified to run only for the full term. Only Democrat Ron Yarbrough qualified to run for the unexpired term.

Bessemer Division Circuit Judge Eugene Verin said he would issue an order by Tuesday.

In a hearing before Verin, Republican Party lawyer Greg Cook said a technicality is keeping Smith's name off the ballot for the unexpired term and that miscommunication between Smith and the party "should not override the right of voters to have a choice." -- Jefferson County Republicans still push for Andrew Smith name on tax post ballot - al.com

Posted by Ed at 7:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

SCOTUSblog reports: Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter, in a brief order Wednesday afternoon, turned down a request that would have given an independent candidate in Maine for the U.S. Senate a place on the Nov. 4 ballot for that office. Souter acted without referring the stay application to his colleagues. There was no written opinion, just a simple denial order. The Justice’s action appears to assure the state’s two major party candidates, incumbent Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican, and her Democratic challenger, Rep. Tom Allen, that they will not have to worry about an independent drawing votes away from them. Sen. Collins is considered by political analysts to be one of the vulnerable GOP Senators seeking reelection. Hoffman’s counsel could still go ahead with plans to file a full appeal on the ballot access issue, but Souter’s action probably reduces significantly the chances that such an appeal would succeed, or that a final ruling could come in time. Maine officials say the ballot must be finalized by Aug. 29. -- UPDATE: Souter refuses to order ballot access

Posted by Ed at 7:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A Detroit News report begins: A three-judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals could decide as early as today whether a far-reaching constitutional amendment that impacts all three branches of government should be allowed to appear on the November ballot.

The judges heard testimony Tuesday on a challenge brought by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and others, asking the court to declare the Reform Michigan Government Now proposal ineligible for the ballot because of the sweeping changes its passage would usher in.

Court watchers expect the appellate panel -- Judges Bill Schuette, William Whitbeck and Patrick Meter -- to announce a decision before 10 a.m. Thursday, when the Board of State Canvassers is scheduled to meet to decide whether the plan should be placed before voters. -- Judges to rule on state reform

Posted by Ed at 7:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A ScotusBlog post begins: Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter has asked the state of Maine and the state Democratic Party chairman to supply their views on the right of an independent candidate for U.S. Senate to have his nominating petition signatures accepted so that he can get on the November election ballot. In an order issued Friday (found here), Souter — in his role as Circuit Justice for the area that includes Maine — sought responses to First Amendment issues raised by the non-party candidate, Herbert J. Hoffman, and told all of the lawyers involved to discuss what kind of legal remedy, if any, should be available to Hoffman. Those filings are due Tuesday.

Souter has the authority to act alone, but also may choose to share the issue with his colleagues.

In an application (08A138) filed Thursday seeking an order to block a Maine Supreme Court ruling of July 28, Hoffman contended that he has submitted 4,038 valid signatures on nominating petitions — over the 4,000 minimum required by state law. But, because of the state court decision, throwing out three separate petitions that each included only a single invalid signature, he would wind up with a total of only 3, 929, and thus would be barred from the ballot.

The state ruling, Hoffman’s application argued, violates the First Amendment right of political expression of himself and voters who support him, the right to gather politically to support a candidate, and the actual right to vote. -- Souter probes Maine ballot access issue

Posted by Ed at 9:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP reports: Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht, appearing before the Texas Ethics Commission, defended himself Thursday against allegations he broke campaign finance laws by accepting discounted legal fees to fight an abuse of office complaint. ...

Hecht was sanctioned in 2006 by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, which alleged that he had abused his office by promoting Harriet Miers for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Legal canons bar Texas judges from endorsing candidates for public office, but Hecht was able to get the sanction reversed on appeal by arguing that Miers was not running for elective office.

In the process, Hecht racked up about $440,000 in legal fees. Hecht later told supporters that he had gotten a substantial discount on the fees from attorney Chip Babcock and his firm, Jackson Walker. But a liberal watchdog group, Texas Watch, said Hecht never properly reported a discount totaling about $100,000.

The group filed a sworn complaint, saying the failure to report the cut-rate fees as a campaign gift constitutes a violation of state campaign finance laws. Texas Watch now wants the commission to fine the Republican judge up to $300,000. -- Supreme Court justice defends self at hearing | AP Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

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

The Mobile Press Register reports: Mobile County Probate Judge Don Davis on Tuesday said he has filed a complaint asking Circuit Court judges to decide whether three local candidates should be taken off the ballot for violating the state's ethics code. ...

Davis, a Republican, said that the complaint notes that an official with the Alabama Ethics Commission said that Manzie, Crenshaw and Law did not comply with state law in filing a campaign finance form by the deadline. ...

Among other things, the candidates were accused of filing their statement of economic interests with the Alabama Ethics Commission late or not at all.

Candidates must file that statement with the Montgomery-based commission within five days of qualifying, according to Jim Sumner of the Ethics Commission.

But Manzie and Crenshaw said they were told by local Democratic Party officials and state election officials that the statement of economic interests was due by April 30, which is the date written on the form itself.

Both filed April 11. But according to testimony during the hearing, Manzie became a candidate Jan. 15 and Crenshaw on March 20, which means they would have missed the five-day threshold. -- Probate judge requests ruling - al.com

Posted by Ed at 7:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A Palo Alto Daily News report begins: A federal appeals court has upheld a Veterans Administration policy barring voter registration drives inside its hospitals, concluding the rule does not violate the First Amendment.

In a unanimous three-judge decision Friday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the VA policy, which came under attack four years ago when Santa Clara County's Democratic Central Committee tried to conduct voter registration at the VA's facility in Menlo Park. VA officials barred the registration, citing a rule that prohibits partisan political activity at VA hospitals.

The legal conflict arose from an attempt by Steve Preminger, the committee's chair, and Scott Rafferty, a Democratic Party lawyer, to register veterans at the hospital. When VA officials discovered that Rafferty wore a John Kerry button and was affiliated with the Democratic Party, they determined the registration effort violated their policy.

Preminger could not be reached for comment Friday, but Rafferty expressed disappointment, saying further appeals are a possibility, particularly with another presidential election looming. -- Palo Alto Daily News

The opinion (No. 08-15714, Preminger v. Peake) is available here.

Posted by Ed at 8:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

An AP report begins: The American Civil Liberties Union sued the South Carolina Election Commission on Thursday, charging the state has kept the Green Party from putting its candidate on November's ballot.

The ACLU said it filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Columbia because the commission wouldn't allow Eugene Platt on the ballot as a Green Party nominee for a Charleston-area state House seat after he lost his bid for the Democratic Party nomination in the June primary.

While the Democratic Party may want to use the state's so-called "sore loser" law to keep Platt off the ballot, "that doesn't trump the right of another party to run who they chose," ACLU lawyer Laughlin McDonald said in an interview as the lawsuit was filed.

The lawsuit asks the court to keep the state from using the sore loser statute to disqualify candidates and to require that Platt's name appear on the November ballot for the seat now held by Rep. Wallace Scarborough, R-Charleston. The sore loser statute prevents the loser of a primary election from appearing on a subsequent ballot as the nominee of a different political party. -- ACLU sues S.C. for nixing Green Party nominee | Spartanburg, South Carolina | GoUpstate.com | Spartanburg Herald-Journal

Posted by Ed at 8:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Washington Post reports: The voting-machine wars in Ohio continue.

Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is assuring voters in the battleground state that November's tally will be accurate even as she asserts -- in court filings yesterday -- that there is a problem with the touch-screen machines to be used in half of the state's 88 counties.

Premier Election Solutions, formerly Diebold, said in May that its machines had some problems tabulating votes. But the company has contended in court filings that it had fulfilled its contract to deliver an electronic system.

During the May primary, Brunner said officials in Butler County, north of Cincinnati, realized that 150 votes were dropped when they were being transferred from memory cards. When Brunner looked into it, she found that the software problem had come up in 11 counties. No vote was lost, she said, because local officials had caught the discrepancies. -- Ohio Sues Over Trouble With Voting Machines - washingtonpost.com

Posted by Ed at 10:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A News4Jax report begins: Supporters of a proposed Florida consitutional amendment requiring voters to approve changes in local growth management plans told a federal judge Wednesday that a host of discrepancies and problems improperly blocked the measure from the November ballot.

Among problems described in testimony before U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra were mistakes in double-counting invalid voter petitions, widely disparate standards used by the state's 67 election supervisors and suspiciously high rejection patterns in some counties. ...

Herrin said also between 7,000 and 10,000 signed voter petitions the group submitted were not accounted for at several county election supervisor offices. ...

Florida Hometown Democracy wants Marra to order the measure placed on this year's ballot and to strike down the Feb. 1 signature deadline, which was enshrined in the Florida Constitution in 2004 by the state's voters. The group contends the new deadline violates the U.S. Constitution in a number of ways, including free speech and voting rights guarantees. -- Judge Hears Florida Planning Amendment Challenge - Jacksonville News Story - WJXT Jacksonville

Posted by Ed at 8:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A Politicker MA report begins: The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts has filed a lawsuit against the Massachusetts Elections Division seeking to ensure the Libertarian presidential nominee appears on the November ballot in Massachusetts.

At issue is whether state election officials allow the Libertarian party to substitute Bob Barr and Wayne Root, its nominees for president and vice president, in place of George Phillies, a Massachusetts Libertarian that sought his party's nomination, on the November ballot. In July of 2007, Phillies asked officials if the Libertarian nominee could be substituted for his name on the ballot because he had to begin gathering the requisite number of signatures well before the Libertarians May 25 convention where its nominee would be chosen.

"The central issue in this case is the restriction of ballot access for third parties, which has been and continues to be a problem in Massachusetts," John Reinstein, Legal Director for the ACLU of Massachusetts, said in a statement.

When Phillies failed to garner the nomination at the convention, he contacted election officials asking to substitute Barr's name for his on the ballot. On June 5, the ACLU said, the elections division denied the request and said Barr could not rely on the signatures Phillies had already collected. The Libertarian Party, the officials said according to the ACLU, would have to repeat the signature gathering process for Barr to appear on the ballot. -- ACLU Mass. files lawsuit for Libertarian candidate to appear on Nov. ballot | Politicker MA

Posted by Ed at 8:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Birmingham News reports:
A retired Gardendale contractor who wants to run as an independent candidate in the 6th Congressional District has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the law he said requires him to get 6,155 signatures of qualified voters before he can be on the ballot.

Andy Shugart, in the lawsuit filed in Birmingham's federal court, contends state law violates his constitutional rights and is more restrictive than necessary by requiring he get the signatures. His suit said independent and minority party candidates for president or vice president are required to file a petition of at least 5,000 signatures. ...

The suit names Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman as the defendant. Jean Brown, the secretary of state's chief legal adviser, said the office had not been served with the suit and she was unable to comment.

The suit said Shugart meets all the qualifications to run for the U.S. House of Representatives, other than the requirement that he file a petition signed by 3 percent of qualified voters who voted in the last gubernatorial election. Shugart said he thought about running for office in the past, but there were always problems with ballot access. -- Gardendale congressional hopeful sues over signatures needed for petition- al.com

The complaint is attached here.

Posted by Ed at 7:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Birmingham News reports: A panel of three federal judges will decide a lawsuit to block the election to fill the District 1 Jefferson County Commission seat.

In a hearing Wednesday at the Hugo Black Federal Courthouse, Judge L. Scott Coogler said a panel will be chosen quickly.

The suit, filed on behalf of Birmingham resident Doris Powell, calls the election improper without clearance from the U.S. Justice Department. The suit seeks to block the election unless federal approval comes by Sept. 14, the deadline for county election officials to send ballots to the printer. -- Federal panel to hear latest District 1 lawsuit that seeks to block election for Jefferson County commission seat- al.com

Disclosure: Jim Blacksher and I represent the plaintiff in this case.

Posted by Ed at 7:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Florida Times-Union reports: Two proposed state constitutional amendments that could expand school vouchers will stay on the Nov. 4 ballot, a judge ruled Monday.

The statewide teachers union and other organizations that challenged the proposals said they would appeal. Circuit Judge John C. Cooper said he realized time was important to both sides and ruled less than four hours after hearing arguments.

Cooper rejected a claim the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission had exceeded its authority by offering amendments that advance vouchers, which let students attend religious and other private schools at taxpayer expense.

Florida Education Association president Andy Ford said the teachers union would campaign against the amendments while it appeals. He conceded the legal issue may not be resolved before Election Day. --

Hati-tip to Religion Clause for the link.

Posted by Ed at 6:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Religion Clause reports: The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments in Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church v. Unsworth, a challenge to Montana's election campaign reporting laws. The Montana Commissioner of Political Practices had ruled that the church should have reported its support of activities in 2004 to get voters to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage. -- 9th Circuit Hears Church's Challenge To Montana Election Finance Reporting Law (The post has links to background information and the oral argument audio.)

Posted by Ed at 6:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The San Francisco Chronicle reports: If voters approve a November ballot measure banning same-sex marriages in California, thousands of gay and lesbian weddings conducted since the state Supreme Court legalized the unions on May 15 will probably remain valid, Attorney General Jerry Brown said Monday.

The potential effect of Proposition 8 on existing same-sex marriages is already being debated among legal scholars and opposing sides in the Nov. 4 ballot measure campaign. Brown's position is significant because his office will represent the state in lawsuits over Prop. 8's validity and meaning if it passes.

The measure would amend the state Constitution to declare that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." It would overturn the court's ruling that the previous ban on same-sex marriage - established by statutes rather than a constitutional amendment - discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation and violated the right to marry one's chosen partner.

The measure does not state explicitly that it would nullify same-sex marriages performed before Nov. 4. But in their ballot arguments, supporters of Prop. 8 declare it would invalidate all such marriages "regardless of when or where performed" - an interpretation that would apply to existing as well as future marriages. -- Prop. 8 not retroactive, Jerry Brown says

Hat-tip to How Appealing for the link.

Posted by Ed at 5:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From a press release of the Reform Institute: The skyrocketing sums being injected into elections for judgeships are undermining the judiciary. This disturbing trend is exemplified by the case of Caperton et al v. Massey Energy, which the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to review.

In keeping with its commitment to fundamental governance and election reform, the Reform Institute has joined with the Brennan Center for Justice and the Campaign Legal Center today in filing an amicus brief in support of petitioners. As the brief states, “Amici share a concern that the injection of massive sums of money into judicial campaigns by litigants and lawyers, can, in certain circumstances, threaten the integrity, impartiality, and independence of the courts, and thereby deprive litigants appearing before those courts of due process of law.”

The petitioners, led by former Solicitor General Ted Olson, argue that their Due Process rights were abridged because a West Virginia Supreme Court Justice refused to recuse himself from hearing the appeal of a $50 million jury verdict, even though the CEO of the company appealing the verdict contributed over $3 million to his campaign for the bench. The Justice, Brent Benjamin, ultimately was the deciding vote in overturning the verdict. As Mr. Olson remarked, “A line needs to be drawn somewhere to prevent a judge from hearing cases involving a person who has made massive campaign contributions to benefit the judge.”

“This case perfectly illustrates how large contributions in judicial races can distort the judicial process, providing at the very least, the appearance of corruption,” according to Cecilia Martinez, Executive Director of the Reform Institute. “When litigants feel that they are at a disadvantage in court proceedings due to contributions to the presiding judge from the opposing party, respect for the rule of law suffers.” -- Massive Money in Judicial Elections a Threat to Due Process

Posted by Ed at 4:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Los Angeles Times reports: Backers of a ballot measure that would require parents to be notified before an abortion is performed on a minor acknowledged Friday that the 15-year-old on which "Sarah s Law" is based had a child and was in a common-law marriage before she died of complications from an abortion in 1994.

Proponents of the measure recently submitted an argument for the state voter guide saying the death of "Sarah" might have been prevented but her parents were not told she had had an abortion and so did not know the reason for her failing health. The proposal Proposition 4 will appear on California s statewide ballot in November.

In court papers filed in her home state of Texas after her death, the man with whom she lived declared himself her common-law husband in an effort to secure custody of the child. Texas recognizes common-law marriage and does not view a married 15-year-old as a minor, according to an attorney for Planned Parenthood.

A lawsuit co-sponsored by Planned Parenthood Affiliates and filed Friday in Sacramento County Superior Court asks the secretary of state to remove the girl's story and other information it deemed misleading, including any reference to "Sarah's Law," from the material submitted for the official voter guide. -- 'Sarah's Law' would not have applied to 'Sarah,' acknowledge backers of the abortion-notification measure - Los Angeles Times

Hat-tip to How Appealing for the link.

Posted by Ed at 11:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Birmingham News reports: A lawyer asked a federal judge on Thursday to fast track a lawsuit contending the Nov. 4 election for a Jefferson County Commission seat is illegal without prior federal approval.

U.S. District Judge L. Scott Coogler was assigned to the case Thursday, minutes after another judge withdrew.

The suit was filed Tuesday by voting-rights lawyer Ed Still on behalf of a District 1 voter. It seeks to block the court-ordered vote for the county commission's District 1 seat unless the U.S. Justice Department clears the election by mid-September.

The state Attorney General's Office filed the clearance request with the Justice Department on Monday. But Still does not expect a decision before Sept. 15, the deadline for ballots to go to the printer for the Nov. 4 general election. -- Judge asked to fast track suit contending Nov. 4 election for Jeffco Commission seat is illegal without federal approval- al.com

The motion is attached.

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

The National Law Journal reports: The descendants of "Freedmen," former African slaves owned by the Cherokee Nation, may go forward with a lawsuit against the tribe's officers in which they claim they were barred from voting in two tribal elections because they lacked an ancestral link to the "Blood Roll" of native Cherokees, a federal appellate court has ruled.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held on July 29 that the tribe itself was protected from suit by sovereign immunity, but that immunity did not extend to tribal officers. Vann v. Kempthorne, No. 07-5024.

The sovereign immunity question drew the panel back into the tribe's history, a history marked by a "stain" shared by the United States, it said: ownership of African slaves. In an 1866 treaty with the United States, the Cherokee Nation renounced slavery and involuntary servitude, and promised to extend "all the rights of native Cherokees" to the former Cherokee slaves, who came to be known as "Freedmen."

In 1896, Congress directed the Dawes Commission to create membership rolls for the so-called Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma, which included the Cherokee Nation. The rolls for the Cherokees, completed in 1907, resulted in two lists: a "Blood Roll" for native Cherokees, and a "Freedmen Roll" for former slaves and their descendants. The panel explained that the lists serve an important function because the tribal constitution of 1976 provides that citizenship in the Cherokee Nation must be proven by reference to the Dawes Commission Rolls. -- Law.com - Descendants of Former African Slaves Owned by Cherokee Nation May Proceed With Suit

Posted by Ed at 7:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Lake-Forester reports: Allen Stevo is suing the State Board of Elections to try and regain a spot on the November ballot for his independent candidacy in the 10th Congressional District.

The action came July 28, the same day the state board voted to remove him from the ballot, finding he had submitted less than 7,000 signatures, while independent candidates are required to submit at least 10,285.

Stevo stated he's "challenging Illinois draconian restrictions on independent candidates who attempt to gain a spot on the ballot. Illinois' restrictions are widely considered among ballot access experts to be the most severe in the country, ranking next to those in Georgia and North Carolina."

Stevo was required to submit 10,285 signatures to the State Board of Elections. His Republican opponent, U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk, was required to submit 673. His Democratic opponent, Dan Seals, was required to submit 1,001. That is a difference of 9,612 and 9,284 respectively. -- <span class=redtext><b id=red>Updated 7/31: </b></span>Stevo files federal suit to regain ballot spot :: News :: PIONEER PRESS :: Lake Forester

Posted by Ed at 7:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The federal court in Alaska has entered an order requiring the State of Alaska to --

1. Provide mandatory poll worker training.
2. Hire a language assistance coordinator fluent in Yup’ik.
3. Recruit bilingual poll workers or translators.
4. Provide sample ballots in written Yup’ik.
5. Provide pre-election publicity in Yup’ik.
6. Ensure the accuracy of translations.
7. Provide a Yup’ik glossary of election terms.
8. Submit pre-election and post-election progress reports.

The order is attached. Thanks to Neil Bradley for sending this to me.

Posted by Ed at 3:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The San Francisco Chronicle reports: Attorney General Jerry Brown is trying to stack the deck against a November ballot measure barring same-sex marriage by declaring in his formal ballot description that it "eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry," sponsors of the initiative charged in a lawsuit Tuesday.

Backers of Proposition 8 argued that they are not trying to eliminate anyone's rights but are simply seeking to restore the definition of marriage that existed in California before May 15, when the state Supreme Court struck down the law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Brown, whose office prepares the title and summary of each measure on the state ballot, chose wording for both that is "inherently argumentative and highly likely to create prejudice" against Prop. 8, attorney Andrew Pugno said in the suit, filed in Sacramento County Superior Court.

The suit asks a judge to order a different title, such as "Limit on Marriage," the wording in the initiative petitions that 1.2 million registered voters signed to place the measure on the Nov. 4 ballot. Pugno said the judge could also delete Brown's heading and use the measure's brief text as its title: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." -- Prop. 8 backers sue to change ballot wording

Posted by Ed at 8:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Birmingham News reports: A voter in Jefferson County Commission District 1 filed a federal suit Tuesday asking judges to block the court-ordered Nov. 4 vote for the commission seat unless the election is cleared by the U.S. Justice Department.

The suit, filed on behalf of Doris Powell, said the planned election is improper without clearance by the U.S. Justice Department under the Voting Rights Act because it represents a change in county voting law.

The suit asks for a three-judge panel to block the election unless Justice Department approval comes in by Sept. 14, the deadline for county elections officials to send the ballot to the printer.

"We want an election to be held that is valid under federal law," said Powell's lawyer, Ed Still. "If they can get preclearance in time to print the ballot, that will be fine. But we don't think that's going to happen." -- Judges are asked to block Nov. 4 election unless cleared by the U.S. Justice Department- al.com

Note: James Blacksher is my co-counsel. The complaint is attached.

Posted by Ed at 7:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Reno Gazette-Journal reports: One day before Nevada's early voting was set to begin, the state Supreme Court confirmed Friday that an amendment to the state Constitution barring public officials from serving more than 12 years is valid -- effectively ending the campaigns of 21 veteran officeholders.

However, state legislators who were elected in the Nov. 5, 1996, election and officially took office before the term limit provision became effective on Nov. 27, 1996, are not affected by the ruling, the court said in a second opinion.

A lawmaker's term in office begins the day after election, so those who won their seats in 1996 were already on the job when the term-limit amendment was finalized. But public officials begin their jobs in January, so those elected in 1996 didn't start work until 1997, after the amendment's effective date. -- State's high court: 12-year limits valid | www.rgj.com | Reno Gazette-Journal

Hat-tip to How Appealing for the link.

Posted by Ed at 1:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Birmingham News reports: Jefferson County's Democrat and Republican parties will pick candidates by Aug. 6 in the court-ordered election for the County Commission's District 1 seat, a Circuit Court judge ruled Friday.

Independents can qualify to run if they get 914 signatures of District 1 voters by Aug. 27, according to a written decision filed by Circuit Judge Scott Vowell.

The Alabama Supreme Court ordered the Nov. 4 vote in a ruling about a months-long legal dispute over how to fill the commission vacancy created when Larry Langford resigned to become Birmingham mayor. ...

Vowell's order did not address whether officials would have to obtain clearance from the U.S. Justice Department under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. A lawyer for Attorney General Troy King said last week his office would seek clearance, but would appeal any order from Vowell setting a deadline. -- Parties told to pick candidates for Jefferson County Commission seat by Aug. 6- al.com

Disclosure: I represent one of the parties in this case.

Posted by Ed at 8:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Brennan Center announces: Today the Brennan Center for Justice, along with pro bono law firms Davis Polk & Wardwell and Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg & Ives, filed a lawsuit in state court in Albuquerque challenging a New Mexico law that significantly restricts the ability of voter registration groups to register new voters and threatens to block thousands of eligible New Mexico citizens from registering and voting in the 2008 elections as unconstitutional and inconsistent with federal and state law. Plaintiffs in the case are the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), the Federation of American Women's Clubs Overseas Inc. (FAWCO), New Mexico Public Interest Research Group (NMPIRG), and the Southwest Organizing Project (SWOP). Plaintiffs typically register thousands of New Mexico citizens (especially low income, minority, disabled, and young citizens) to vote but have suspended or dramatically curtailed their operations as a result of the challenged law.

There are currently over half a million unregistered eligible voters in New Mexico. The suit claims that New Mexico's law—New Mexico Statutes Annotated § 1-4-49, and New Mexico Administrative Rules §§ 1.10.25.7-10—both enacted in 2005-constitutes an unconstitutional burden on free speech and association by impeding civic groups from helping eligible voters to register.

"The law aggressively discourages civic organizations from helping New Mexico citizens to exercise their basic right to vote, and threatens voter registration drives across the state," Robby Rodriguez from SWOP stated. --

The Brennan Center has a link to the complaint.

Posted by Ed at 6:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This morning, my co-counsel and I filed the Motion to Dismiss or Affirm the appeal of Gov. Riley in Riley v. Plump, No. 07-1460, U.S. Supreme Court. The questions presented are:

1. Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction over the present appeal because appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed.

2. Whether section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, requires preclearance when a covered jurisdiction enacts a statute repealing its preexisting law mandating special elections to fill vacancies on a county governing body and replaces it with a provision providing for temporary gubernatorial appointment.

In this case, Gov. Riley argues that this case is covered by the Court's recent decision in Riley v. Kennedy, but our brief shows this case falls squarely within the “routine consequence of § 5” that a state must “administer a law it has repealed,” unless and until it receives preclearance of the new law. Riley v. Kennedy, 128 S. Ct. at 1986.

We also submitted this letter to the Clerk to inform him of additional developments in the case.

Posted by Ed at 3:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Birmingham News reports: A lawsuit claims the state of Alabama is violating the constitutional rights of thousands of convicted felons by denying them the right to vote.

The suit, filed Monday by the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Alabama, contends that Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman and county registrars are wrongly requiring thousands of felons to apply to the Board of Pardons and Paroles to have voting rights restored. ...

The Alabama Constitution says people convicted of crimes of "moral turpitude" cannot vote until they get their rights restored. However, the state constitution does not define a crime of moral turpitude.

The Legislature in 2003 named 15 felonies that warrant the criminal losing his or her voting rights, and the ACLU's lawsuit asserts that only the Legislature can set voting requirements.

But ACLU lawyer Sam Brooke said his group believes local registrars are improperly going beyond that law and denying others the right to register, partly based on a 2005 opinion issued by the attorney general's office. -- ACLU lawsuit challenges Alabama voting practice- al.com

Attached are the complaint, motion for preliminary injunction, and motion for class certification. Thanks to the ACLU of Alabama for sending them to me.

Posted by Ed at 6:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The New York Times reports: Ohio must include the Libertarian Party’s nominees on its ballot in November, a court has ruled, complicating Senator John McCain’s effort to win conservative votes in a hotly contested state rich in electoral votes.

The Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr, formerly a Republican congressman from Georgia, will lead his party’s ticket, which includes the vice-presidential candidate, Wayne Allyn Root, and candidates for governor and several Congressional seats. ...

The court order, issued Thursday, directs the Ohio secretary of state, Jennifer L. Brunner, to disregard her office’s current guidelines for ballot inclusion, which require eligible parties to gather valid signatures equal to one-half of 1 percent of the total vote in 2006 or to have garnered at least 5 percent of the last election’s votes. The Libertarians submitted 6,545 signatures in March, far below the approximately 20,000 needed. Ms. Brunner’s office has not decided whether to appeal the ruling. ...

On the other side of the political spectrum, Ralph Nader is seeking to run on the Ohio ballot as an independent candidate, which requires 5,000 valid signatures. He plans to submit 15,000, the maximum amount Ohio law allows, in August, said Jason Kafoury, national coordinator for Mr. Nader’s campaign. -- Court Orders Ohio to Include Libertarian Party on Ballot

Posted by Ed at 6:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Oklahoman reports: A third-party presidential candidate has filed a federal lawsuit to try and force his way on to Oklahoma's ballot in November.

Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman selected as Libertarian presidential candidate, contends state election laws are discriminatory because unrecognized political party candidates cannot file to run for president in Oklahoma. -- Libertarian sues to get spot on ballot | NewsOK.com

Posted by Ed at 6:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP reports: The Missouri Department of Social Services has been violating a federal law that requires it to help its clients register to vote, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday, ordering the social services agency to comply with the National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as the "motor-voter" law.

The agency said it would follow the judge’s order. ...

The National Voter Registration Act was enacted in 1993 and requires state public assistance agencies, which administer such programs as food stamps and Medicaid, to provide its clients with the chance to register to vote. The agencies also are required to help the clients complete the registrations. --

The decision is available on the site of Demos.

Posted by Ed at 4:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Los Angeles Times reports: A voter initiative to reinstate a ban on same-sex marriage will remain on the November ballot, the California Supreme Court decided unanimously Wednesday.

The court issued a brief order rejecting arguments that the initiative, Proposition 8, was an illegal constitutional revision and that voters had been misled when they signed petitions to put it on the ballot. The decision, reached in closed session during the court's weekly conference, cleared the way for what some observers expect to be a close vote on the marriage measure. ...

If approved by voters, Proposition 8, called the "California Marriage Protection Act," would add a provision to the state Constitution that says, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." -- Bid to ban gay marriage will stay on ballot, California Supreme Court rules - Los Angeles Times

The San Francisco Chronicle reports: The lawsuit against Prop. 8 argued that the one-sentence initiative was actually a broad attack on basic rights recognized by the court - a measure that would simultaneously deprive one group of fundamental freedoms by majority vote and strip the courts of their ability to enforce constitutional guarantees.

Although its backers call it a constitutional amendment, Prop. 8 is actually a constitutional revision, the suit contended. A revision must be submitted to the voters by a two-thirds majority of the state Legislature.

The last time the court accepted such an argument was in 1990, when it overturned part of a voter-approved constitutional amendment on crime. In that case, the justices said a provision requiring state judges to follow federal interpretations of defendants' rights was a broad attack on judicial authority and a "fundamental change in our ... governmental plan."

Lawyers for the Prop. 8 backers argued that an amendment to restore the state's previous definition of marriage would leave courts with "full authority to continue protecting the rights of minorities." They said equally far-reaching changes in California law - for example, the restoration of the death penalty in 1972 and the overhaul of the tax system under Proposition 13 in 1978 - were accomplished by initiative. -- Challenge tossed, gay marriage ban on ballot

Posted by Ed at 6:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Times-Union reports: Confusion over how citizens can register to vote is threatening to muddle upcoming elections in Florida.

Voter registration drives statewide are under fire from a new state law that establishes stiff fees for groups who undertake them. The League of Women Voters is challenging that law. ...

The League of Women Voters of Florida is suing the state, saying the 2007 law will have a "chilling" effect on registration drives. They argue that the regulations disproportionately affect poor, African-American, Hispanic and women voters because they are twice as likely to register through a drive, said Dianne Wheatley-Giliotti, past president of the league.

The court battle over the law won't be resolved for at least two months. So the rule won't be in place for at least the Aug. 26 primary, Davis said. The registration deadline is July 6.

A federal judge has until mid-August to decide on a legal challenge to the law. Even if she decides it's permissible, it might not take effect before the registration deadline for the Nov. 4 election. The registration deadline for the November election is Oct. 6. -- Voter law threatens to cloud elections -- Jacksonville.com

Posted by Ed at 5:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Capitol Media Services reports: Backers of a plan to hike state sales taxes for the next 30 years filed suit Friday because they don t like the description to be given to voters about the ballot measure at least in part because it spells out the size of the proposed increase.

The lawsuit filed in Maricopa County Superior Court specifically objects to the Legislative Council describing the proposed levy "a 17.8 percent tax increase." That according to attorneys for the group pushing the initiative is "misleading."

But during the hearing of the council earlier this week Stan Barnes who lobbies for road-tax supporters conceded the number is in fact "deadly accurate." What he wanted however was to describe the increase only as one penny on every dollar spent. ...

The actual language of every ballot measure is sent to the home of each registered voter. But given the complexity of many of the proposals - this one alone is 15 pages - state law requires the Legislative Council, made up of lawmakers from both parties, to craft "an impartial analysis" of each one.

In this case, the majority of council members voted to say that approval of this initiative - dubbed "Transportation and Infrastructure Moving Arizona's Economy" - would increase the state sales tax from 5.6 cents on every dollar to 6.6 cents, a 17.8 percent increase beginning in 2010. -- Backers of tax hike want ballot wording changed | Arizona Politics | eastvalleytribune.com

Posted by Ed at 5:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Capitol Media Services reports: Arizona's early June deadline for independent presidential candidates to get on the general election ballot is illegal, a federal appellate court ruled Wednesday.

In a unanimous decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the arguments by an attorney for Ralph Nader that the deadline, which applies only to those not affiliated with major parties, is unfair.

The judges rejected arguments by Secretary of State Jan Brewer the early deadline is necessary to print ballots for the November election. The judges said the state's arguments held no water because election officials don't know for weeks - or months - later what other issues will also be on the ballot.

And they noted the deadline doesn't apply to the major parties who are allowed to submit the names of their candidates for the ballot in August or even later.

Potentially more significant, the judges also agreed with Nader that it is illegal to forbid anyone but Arizona residents to circulate petitions for presidential candidates. -- News: Federal court opens door for Ralph Nader to run in Arizona | court, run, door : YumaSun

The opinion is here.

Posted by Ed at 6:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Tampa Tribune reports: Two registered voters have filed a lawsuit in Pasco County challenging the write-in candidate "loophole" in state election law.

They say the provision unfairly closed the Aug. 26 primary election in a county commission race, effectively disenfranchising 170,000 registered Democrats, Independents and minor party voters in Pasco.

Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment in 1998 to let all voters participate in primaries if all candidates in a race come from the same political party. In 2000, however, the state Division of Elections ruled that the primary is not open if the race includes any write-in candidates, who are considered general election candidates.

State Sen. Dave Aronberg, D-Greenacres, has been working to close the loophole, which he said politicians are exploiting. -- Suit Targets Write-In Candidates Loophole

Posted by Ed at 7:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Alabama Supreme Court decided today that it was completely legal for Gov. Riley to make an appointment to fill a vacancy on the Jefferson County Commission. Thus, Commissioner George Bowman will serve until his successor is elected in November. The Supreme Court leaves it up to the Circuit Court to figure out how the political parties are going to nominate candidates.

The decision in Working v. Jefferson County Commission is here.

Disclosure: James Blacksher and I represent Fred Plump, one of the parties who argued against the right of the Governor to appoint at all.

Update: The Birmingham News story is here.

Posted by Ed at 7:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The local NPR station reports that Ray Bryan has sued the Republican Party to keep the Party from decertifying his primary win. The latest story in the Anniston Star is behind a subscription firewall, but the Star reported a week ago: Local attorney Ray Bryan may not become circuit judge despite having won the June GOP primary election, according to state Republican Party officials.

Alabama Republican Party Executive Director John Ross said the party's steering and candidates committee has moved to decertify Bryan, and plans to appoint a replacement, after he was late filing forms required by the state's Fair Campaign Practices Act. -- Bryan may lose judgeship over finance filings | AnnistonStar.com

Posted by Ed at 6:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Alabama Politics in Doc's Political Parlor reports: There is a confusing story in Jefferson County that is turning into a pitched battle between county Democrats and Republicans.

Seems that about 18 months ago, Republican Andy Smith was appointed by Gov. Riley to fill an unexpired term as Bessemer Division Tax Assessor. That term ends Sept. 30, 2009. There is an election for the seat in this November’s general election.

Here is where it gets confusing:

A 1957 state law that applies only to Jefferson County requires political appointees to run for the unexpired term of their predecessor if the appointment was made more than six months before the next general election.

To keep the seat without interruption, not only does Andy Smith have to qualify for and win the election for the term that begins in 2009, he also has to win the election for the remainder of the unexpired term. For which he did not file qualifying papers. -- Parties in Heated Battle in Jefferson County

Links to the complaint and the Democrats' response is on the Political Party.

Posted by Ed at 10:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From a DNC press release: The Democratic National Committee today filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in D.C. to compel the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to investigate John McCain's decision to unilaterally withdraw from the FEC's matching funds program despite using the program to financially benefit his campaign - just one of many McCain campaign improprieties. To view a copy of the DNC's lawsuit, please visit: http://www.democrats.org/page/-/pdf/DNCFECMcCain_062408.pdf.

John McCain talks about setting a new standard for "transparency and accountability" yet when it comes to his campaign, he doesn't seem to think the rules apply to him. First, he used taxpayer dollars to secure a loan to keep his campaign afloat in the primary, a move that's clearly against the law. Then the Wall Street Journal reported that McCain refused to pay for his campaign's use of a corporate jet - again against the law - and last week, his trip to Canada came under question for possible violations of federal law.

Posted by Ed at 2:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Birmingham News reports: Alabama Attorney General Troy King said Monday that U.S. Justice Department officials have refused to help his office investigate possible election violations in Perry County.

King said federal officials, despite requests, have not sent his office a report on what federal observers saw in Perry County during the primary elections June 3. ...

Justice Department spokeswoman Jamie Hais replied in a written statement that observer reports are not released while a matter is under review by the department, "per Department practice, and in order to protect the integrity of the Department's election monitoring system and the Department's own enforcement work." -- No report yet on Perry elections- al.com

Posted by Ed at 7:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP reports: Gay rights advocates asked California s highest court Friday to keep off the November ballot a citizens initiative that would again ban same-sex marriage.

Lawyers for Equality California filed a petition arguing that the proposed amendment to the California Constitution should be invalidated because its impact was not made clear to the millions of voters who signed petitions to qualify the measure before the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions. ...

Rather than effecting no change in existing California law, the proposed initiative would dramatically change existing law by taking that fundamental right away and inscribing discrimination based on a suspect classification into our state Constitution.

The petition also claims the so-called California Marriage Protection Act should be disqualified because it would revise, rather than amend, the state Constitution by altering its fundamental guarantee of equality for all - in essence writing a law the state high court has already found unconstitutional into the constitution. -- Gay rights advocates seek to stop marriage measure - Forbes.com

Hat-tip to TalkLeft for the link.

Posted by Ed at 6:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Indiana Lawyer Daily reports: The League of Women Voters of Indiana filed a lawsuit today in Marion County challenging the state s three-year-old voter identification statute recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

At 2 p.m. today, the organization filed the suit with the Marion Superior Court against Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita, arguing that it has the standing to sue on behalf of its members because the state statute burdens potential voters and would cause the league to have to spend precious resources assisting voters without the required ID.

This lawsuit comes following the April 28 ruling from the nation s highest court in William Crawford, et al. v. Marion County Election Board, 128 S. Ct. 1610 2008 , which upheld the state law that is considered the strictest in the nation. That ruling rejected the facial challenge, but left the door open for as-applied challenges in federal court and those involving state constitutional claims. -- New voter ID lawsuit filed

Thanks to Mike Pitts for the link.

And thanks to William Groth, attorney for the plaintiffs, for a copy of the complaint.

Posted by Ed at 6:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AlterNet reports: An attorney for the Department of Veterans Affairs, which runs hospitals and homeless shelters for veterans, told a federal appeals court Thursday that the VA could not conceive of any circumstance where voter registration drives could occur at its facilities. ...

But Scott Rafferty, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney who has spent several years arguing the VA must allow voter registration drives to help wounded former soldiers register and vote, disagreed. ...

The issue before a federal appeals court in San Francisco is whether restrictions on voter registration drives at the VA's campus in nearby Menlo Park are unconstitutional.

The case has national significance. The VA has facilities across the country serving thousands of veterans. In 1994, then-President Bill Clinton ordered the VA to help register veterans. However, the VA ceased allowing voter registration drives during the Bush administration. -- Veterans Affairs Tells Court It Can't Imagine Voter Registration Drives for Its Wounded Veterans and the Homeless | Democracy and Elections | AlterNet

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

The New York Times reports: Voting rights groups are criticizing the Department of Veterans Affairs for its decision to ban registration drives among the veterans living at federally run nursing homes, shelters for the homeless and rehabilitation centers across the country.

The groups say such drives make it easier for veterans to register and participate in the political process, which could be particularly important this year in a presidential election in which the handling of the Iraq war and treatment of veterans will be major campaign issues. ...

Although veterans are not federal employees, department officials based their decision in part on the Hatch Act, which bans federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity. ...

For years, the department allowed the managers of its sites to decide individually whether to permit such drives. In 2004, Steve Preminger, a Democratic county chairman, filed a lawsuit after he was refused permission to register voters at a V.A. campus in Menlo Park, Calif., about 25 miles south of San Francisco. A lower court ruled against Mr. Preminger in January, finding that he had failed to prove that any veteran was actually prevented from voting.

On Thursday, a federal appellate court heard arguments in the case. -- V.A. Ban on Voter Drives Is Criticized - NYTimes.com

Posted by Ed at 7:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Birmingham News reports: A decision on the dispute over a vacancy on the Jefferson County Commission may hinge on whether a special election to fill it was legal or if a group of residents had the right to sue to block the vote.

The Alabama Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday over how to fill the commission vacancy created when Larry Langford resigned to become Birmingham s mayor.

The justices did not say when they would rule.

Justices questioned whether the people who sued to block the Feb. 5 special election had a right to file the case. If not, the court could rule there was no valid challenge to the election, won by Birmingham City Councilman William Bell.

But the justices also discussed whether the 1977 law allowing the county's election commission to call for the vote was unconstitutional. Gov. Bob Riley's lawyer said state law gives the governor sole power to fill the seat and the county special-election law should be struck down.

If a court majority agrees, the governor's appointee, George Bowman, would be the commissioner. -- Right to sue, hold special election at heart of District 1 case - al.com

Posted by Ed at 6:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

MyrlteBeachOnline.com reports: Bill McKown, a Republican candidate for the state Senate in District 28, sued the S.C. Democratic Party Monday for conspiracy and defamation about a month after the party filed a lawsuit alleging he did not live in District 28, which includes North Myrtle Beach.

McKown is the only candidate challenging incumbent Sen. Dick Elliott, D-North Myrtle Beach.

McKown s suit alleges the Democrats forged an exclusive rental agreement to make it appear as if Elliott Realty Inc., a company controlled by Elliott, had exclusive rights to lease land McKown nearly leased for his campaign office.

McKown s suit alleges that by forging the rental agreement, it made it seem as if McKown never had access to the property and lied on his statement of candidacy form, where he listed that property s address when he initially filed to run for office. -- Republican candidate sues Democratic Party - Local - Myrtle Beach Sun News

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

The Dallas Morning News reports: An unsuccessful school board candidate filed a federal lawsuit today alleging that the Irving school district’s system of at-large elections for trustees violates the law by denying representation to the school district’s Hispanic citizens.

Manuel Benavidez, who twice ran unsuccessfully for a place on the Irving school board, is the named plaintiff in the lawsuit, which was filed by attorneys for the Dallas firm Bickel & Brewer. The named defendants are Irving ISD and its seven elected trustees. -- Voting lawsuit filed today against Irving school district | Denton Record-Chronicle | News for Denton County, Texas | Latest News

Note: the case is not on Pacer yet. If anyone has the complaint, please email it to me for posting.

Posted by Ed at 8:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Detroit Free Press reports: Southfield lawyer Geoffrey Fieger and his law partspener Vernon (Ven) Johnson were acquitted by a federal jury in Detroit today of illegally contributing more than $100,000 to John Edwards’ 2004 presidential campaign.

The defendants smiled after the verdicts were announced following 20 hours of deliberations over four days and a 20-day trial.

“I’m very pleased with the American system and the jury. I thank the jury for listening. I hope this puts an end to political prosecutions in the age of Mr. Bush,” Fieger said.

Feiger was facing a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison had he been convicted of obstruction of justice, along with certain loss of his law license. Both Feiger and Johnson would have faced a maximum of 5 years for the other charges. -- Fieger, law partner acquitted of illegal political donations

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

Janai Nelson, "Chipping Away at the VRA One Court Decision at a Time," Talking Justice

Anita S. Krishnakumar, "The 'Mischief Rule' Rule and the VRA in Riley v. Kennedy," Concurring Opinions

Lee P, " U.S. Supreme Court vindicates Riley, King," A Bama Blog

Will Bardwell, " Not-So-Educated-After-All Thoughts On Riley v. Kennedy," WillBardwell.com

Rick Hills, "Civil Rights Lawyers' Ignorance of Local Government Law," Prawfsblawg plus comments by Sam Heldman

Posted by Ed at 4:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The New York Times reports: A special three-judge court ruled Friday that Congress acted constitutionally when it extended the law requiring sections of the country with a history of racial discrimination to get federal approval for any changes in voting procedures.

The unanimous decision upheld a central provision of the Voting Rights Act, which Congress initially passed in 1965 and has extended several times since, most recently for 25 years in 2006. Section 5 of the law prohibits several states, mostly in the South, and some local government agencies from changing their election practices without permission from the Justice Department or the courts.

Each renewal of the law has been followed by a legal challenge from some state or local agency to this “preclearance” requirement. The latest challenge was undertaken by the board of a public utility near Austin, Tex., which said the requirement conferred a “badge of shame” over “conditions that existed 30 or more years ago but have long since been remedied.”

The Northwest Austin Utility District argued that Congress lacked sufficient evidence of racial discrimination to justify the intrusion on state sovereignty. -- Court Upholds Key Provision of the Voting Rights Act

The opinion is available here.

Posted by Ed at 10:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Thomas Haymore writes on SCOTUSblog: With a “preclearance” mechanism requiring Justice Department approval before a state may “enact or seek to administer” any changes in “any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting,” Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has generated its fair share of public debate and legal challenge. In a carefully worded and consciously narrow opinion, the Court this week in Riley v. Kennedy, by a 7-2 vote, carved out an exemption from § 5 coverage, although the technicalities of the fact-specific ruling limit the reach of the opinion. -- Opinion Recap: Riley v. Kennedy

Posted by Ed at 7:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports: Despite a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of requiring voters to produce state-issued picture IDs at the polls, the Democratic Party of Georgia has filed a new lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the state's voter ID law.

The Supreme Court ruled in an Indiana case on April 28 and the decision was cheered by Georgia Republicans because it seemed to protect the state's 2006 Photo ID Act.

Emmet Bondurant, attorney for the state Democratic Party, said that Indiana case actually opened the door to get the Georgia law declared unconstitutional by the Georgia Supreme Court. ...

The Georgia law already was declared unconstitutional once by Superior Court Judge T. Jackson Bedford, but the Georgia Supreme Court dismissed the case last year because it said the plaintiff, Rosalind L. Lake of Atlanta, had no standing to sue.

The court said Lake could have voted without the ID when she filed the lawsuit and as a result could not challenge the law's constitutionality.

In the Indiana case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the state Democratic Party had standing to bring the lawsuit. Bondurant said that should help the new Georgia case clear the hurdle that derailed the last one. The new case will also be heard by Bedford. ...

But Bondurant said the case will be decided under the Georgia Constitution, which he said permits any 18-year-old citizen the right to vote as long as he or she meets minimum residency requirements, has registered to vote and hasn't been convicted of a felony or been found mentally incompetent. -- Voter ID law disputed again

Note: The case is Democratic Party of Georgia, Inc., v. Perdue et al., Case No. 2008CV151081, Fulton Co. Superior Court. If anyone has a copy of the complaint, please send it to me.

Posted by Ed at 6:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Dallas Morning News reports: The Texas Democratic Party has settled a federal lawsuit against the state, with Attorney General Greg Abbott agreeing not to target people who collect legitimate mail-in ballots as part of his voter-fraud campaign.

Both sides claimed victory in the case, which was settled just before the U.S. District Court trial was set to begin Wednesday. ...

In most cases, the voters were eligible and votes weren't changed, but the people who collected the ballots for mailing were prosecuted for failing to properly sign the mailing envelope as required by law.

Under the agreement, the attorney general's focus will be on cases in which there was actual fraud, not what Democrats called "hypertechnical violations" involving mail-in ballots.

"This is an implicit recognition on his part that these technical violations that he has been prosecuting these little old ladies for are not voter fraud," said attorney Gerald Hebert, who represented the Democratic Party.

For his part, Mr. Abbott said the judge's order dismissing the lawsuit was accompanied by a renewed commitment by the state to educate political activists who collect mail-in ballots about the law's requirements. -- Texas Democrats, attorney general settle federal voter-fraud lawsuit | Dallas Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | Texas Regional News

Posted by Ed at 8:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Mobile Press-Register reports: If Juan Chastang gets his Mobile County Commission seat back, it will almost certainly be a temp job but it also could net him tens of thousands of dollars in back pay, a commission attorney said.

The current District 1 commission term expires in November, and Chastang has already missed the April deadline to run for the seat this fall as a Republican, said Mark Erwin, a commission attorney who is also the head of the local GOP. For Chas tang to get his NAME on the ballot, he would need to fill out paperwork to run as an independent and round up thousands of signatures by 5 p.m. Tuesday. He could also run a write-in campaign.

Even if Chastang only takes office for a few months, though, it could be worthwhile because he might be eligible to receive back pay totaling more than $75,000, Erwin said. -- Chastang could be owed back pay- al.com

Posted by Ed at 6:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP reports: The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a ruling that would have forced Mississippians to register by political party and to show photo identification at the polls to be able to vote.

The Mississippi Democratic Party sued in 2006 to keep non-Democrats from voting in its primaries. -- WLOX-TV and WLOX.com - Building South Mississippi Together |This Hour: Latest Mississippi news, sports, business and entertainment:

Thanks to Steve Rankin for sending me the opinion. Here are the first two paragraphs of the opinion:

Plaintiffs Mississippi Democratic Party and Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to overturn as unconstitutional Mississippi’s semi-closed primary1 statute, Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-575. They succeeded beyond their expectations when the district court declared the statute unconstitutional and fashioned a sweeping injunction. that required not only party registration but also photo identification in order to vote in a party’s primary. The court’s ruling spawned a free-for-all on appeal. Plaintiffs themselves cross-appeal the mandatory photo ID requirement. Intervenors NAACP and the Mississippi Republican Executive Committee also challenge separate portions of the decree. The state is divided: defendant Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood argues that plaintiffs’ claims are not justiciable, while governor Haley Barbour and the Secretary of State have filed a brief supporting photo IDs for voters. In the meantime, the state legislature has been debating changes in the primary law. We will put the parties out of their litigation misery.

Because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that their claims involve an actual case or controversy, the claims were not justiciable and should not have been addressed by the district court. The judgment is REVERSED and the injunction VACATED.

Posted by Ed at 5:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Gadsden Times reports: “Vote or Die,” exhorts the faded slogan on a roadway at Prairie View A&M University, where black students once marched for the right to vote here in the town where they attend school, on a former cotton plantation about 50 miles northwest of Houston.

The students won that battle in 2004, long after the United States Supreme Court supposedly decided the issue in 1979. But disputes over minority voting rights — along with accusations of election fraud — continue to rouse Prairie View, home to one of the nation’s leading historically black colleges, and other Texas locales.

“The cold war’s not over — they just moved the fence from Berlin to the Texas border,” said DeWayne Charleston, Waller County justice of the peace, who maintains that local officials failed to record hundreds of students whom he registered to vote in 2006. The federal Department of Justice and the Texas attorney general’s office say investigations are under way here, but will not give details.

Meanwhile, the attorney general, Greg Abbott, is a defendant in a separate voting rights case that goes to federal trial on Wednesday in the East Texas city of Marshall, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision last month upholding Indiana’s tough voter identification law.

Arguing that antifraud provisions enacted in 2003 were being selectively enforced to intimidate minority voters who are largely Democrats, the Texas Democratic Party filed suit against Mr. Abbott and Phil Wilson, the secretary of state, both Republicans. -- 2 Voter Rights Cases, One Gripping a College Town, Stir Texas | GadsdenTimes.com | Gadsden Times | Gadsden, AL

Posted by Ed at 7:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Birmingham News reports: The ability of Alabama s governor to fill a vacancy on the Mobile County Commission was strengthened by the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday, but the decision will not stop a similar legal battle over a seat on the Jefferson County Commission.

While the two cases are not identical, they both pit Alabama s Republican governor - who wants to be able to appoint commissioners to certain vacancies - against local Democrats - who prefer special elections by the voters. They also highlight the continued, controversial effect of the Voting Rights Act on the state.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, said Gov. Bob Riley s hand-picking of a new Mobile commissioner did not need to be reviewed by the federal government because it was simply a return to previous law, not a change to election procedures. In the opinion, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court overturned an earlier ruling that Riley s appointment was invalid.

Riley's office called it a "landmark victory" and said they were reviewing how it would play out in Mobile County, where Juan Chastang was appointed by Riley in 2005 but then lost a special election last year. ...

But Democrats were not willing to concede that the Mobile decision would upend Bell's election.

On the contrary, their lead attorney noted Tuesday that Ginsburg herself described the Mobile decision as "narrow," and that the legal history in Jefferson County is different than in Mobile. Birmingham lawyer Edward Still also called Emerson's statement "far-fetched."

"He just won a technical knockout, that's all," Still said. -- Riley wins U.S. Supreme Court decision in Mobile, but Jeffco case continues- al.com

Posted by Ed at 7:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP reports: State officials say a challenge to Arizona requirements for voter identification and proof of citizenship should be thrown out in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana s voter ID law.

The ruling on Indiana s law leaves no room for doubt that Arizona s voting identification requirement is constitutional and also backs up the requirement that people registering to vote prove their citizenship, Attorney General Terry Goddard and four assistants said in a brief filed in U.S. District Court.

Most but not all of the voting activists, tribes and other challengers to Arizona s law want to push ahead with their combined 2006 lawsuits, arguing that the Supreme Court s April 28 ruling in the Indiana case does not resolve all the issues at stake in Arizona. -- AZ seeks dismissal of voter ID challenge

Posted by Ed at 7:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP reports: Democrats challenging Arizona s legislative districts are appealing a court ruling that leaves the map in place and sets a high legal bar for challengers to clear.

Lawyers for the challengers are asking the Arizona Supreme Court to review a state Court of Appeals decision overturning a trial judge s ruling and upholding the map drawn by a commission.

The petition filed Thursday said the Supreme Court should hear the appeal because there are major conflicts between prior Court of Appeals rulings on how redistricting must be done by a state commission and that errors need to be corrected "once and for all" before redistricting begins again in 2010. ...

The conflicts concern whether the commission must favor creating competitive districts or merely consider creating them, when it must do so in its process and whether it has powers and privileges of a legislative or an administrative body, the petition stated. -- State Democrats appeal legislative redistricting ruling

Posted by Ed at 7:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Miami Herald reports: Florida s history of discrimination against African Americans should force the national Democratic Party to count all of the state s delegates at its national convention, a federal lawsuit filed Thursday claims.

The suit, filed by state Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller and two other Democrats, claims that the federal Voting Rights Act prohibits the national party from stripping the state of its convention delegates as punishment for violating party rules by holding its primary too early.

The civil-rights-era law requires the U.S. Justice Department to approve any significant voting change in Florida to make sure it doesn t disenfranchise minority voters. Geller argues that includes the Democratic National Committee s demand that Florida switch from a state-run primary to party-run caucus system to avoid losing its delegates. ...

Federal courts have thrown out two previous challenges to the DNC s rule. In December, a federal judge in Tallahassee rejected a lawsuit by Democratic U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson that claimed the punishment would disenfranchise Florida voters, and in March an Atlanta court dismissed the case of a Tampa political activist claiming that the DNC was treating Florida unfairly. -- Democrats file suit to seat Florida delegates - 05/23/2008 - MiamiHerald.com

Note: The complaint can be viewed here: Geller v. Democratic National Committee.

Posted by Ed at 8:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Houston Chronicle reports: A federal judge sided with the Texas Democratic Party on Thursday in a lawsuit filed by Latino voter advocates who said the party's method for apportioning presidential delegates is discriminatory.

U.S. District Judge Fred Biery in San Antonio ruled that the spirit and intent of the federal Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voters, was not violated, as the League of United Latin American Citizens and other plaintiffs alleged.

Biery dismissed the case. He ruled that the Voting Rights Act does not dictate to political parties how to decide on their presidential nominees as long as everyone has the right to participate.

The Latino voter advocates said the complicated Texas delegate system, which included a March 4 primary and caucus and Senate district caucuses March 29, unfairly dilutes Latino votes by allotting fewer presidential delegates to heavily Hispanic areas. -- Judge dismisses Latino suit over Democratic vote | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

The opinion may be downloaded here.

Posted by Ed at 12:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Crain's Detroit Business reports: High-profile lawyer Geoffrey Fieger described Wednesday how he spent part of a weekend in his firm s library doing research that convinced him that reimbursing employees and others for political donations was legal.

But Fieger, who rose to prominence representing assisted suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian, said during cross-examination by assistant U.S. Attorney Lynn Helland that there was no reason to document that opinion.

"I've been practicing law for 30 years," Fieger said while on the stand a second day in his own defense at his federal campaign finance trial. "I don t write memos to myself ... about thoughts in my own mind." ...

Under questioning from defense attorney Gerry Spence, Fieger said there was no attempt to conceal the reimbursements, which he said clearly were listed in the books. He also said taxes were paid on them. -- Fieger back on the stand during his federal trial in Detroit - Crain s Detroit Business

Posted by Ed at 7:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Gov. Riley has filed his Jurisdictional Statement in Riley v. Plump. His questions presented are:

1. Whether the decisions of a covered jurisdiction's highest court concerning the validity of a precleared state law, or, in the alternative, an appointment made by the Governor of the State in compliance with those decisions, requires preclearance pursuant to § 5 [of the Voting Rights Act].

2. Whether § 5 requires preclearance of the implementation of a practice in force and effect on the coverage date of November 1, 1964.

3. Whether the district court erred when it entered judgment after briefing and oral argument on the plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction, without providing the notice required by Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 65(a)(2).

This case relates to the appointment by the Governor of a commissioner to fill a vacancy on the Jefferson County Commission. It is somewhat similar to the Riley v. Kennedy case, no. 07-77, now awaiting decision.

I have the honor of being one of the lawyers for Mr. Plump in this matter.

Posted by Ed at 10:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Birmingham News reports: The dispute over who should be the District 1 representative on the Jefferson County Commission will be argued before the Alabama Supreme Court on June 4.

The court set oral arguments in the appeal of Circuit Judge Scott Vowell s ruling in March that William Bell is entitled to hold the seat. The vacancy was created when Larry Langford resigned to become Birmingham s mayor.

Bell, a Birmingham city council member, won a special election on Feb. 5, beating out five other candidates. -- Dispute over District 1 representative on the Jefferson County Commission to be argued before the state Alabama Supreme Court on June 4- al.com

Disclosure: I represent one of the parties to this case.

Posted by Ed at 7:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Detroit News reports: The government on Monday closed its criminal case against high-profile Southfield attorney Geoffrey Fieger and his law partner Ven Johnson.

The United States rest, Assistant U.S. Attorney Lynn Helland said after defense lawyers finished cross examining FBI Special Agent Jeffrey Rees, who spent four days in the witness box.

Fieger, 57, and Johnson, 46, were indicted in 2007 on conspiracy and illegal campaign contribution charges. They are accused of making $127,000 in illegal donations to the 2004 presidential campaign of Democrat John Edwards by reimbursing employees, employee relatives and law firm vendors. Fieger is also charged with obstruction of justice, a 10-year felony.

Defense lawyers have acknowledged the political donations were reimbursed by Fieger and his firm and the key issue is whether Fieger and Johnson knowingly broke the law.

In 15 days of testimony, defense attorneys have attempted to redirect the focus to the government s conduct, portraying Fieger as a man with a bullseye on his back because of his politics and pointing to the unusually large amount of government resources directed at a campaign finance prosecution. -- Feds rest case against Fieger

Posted by Ed at 8:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Detroit Free Press reports: A paralegal testified today that the FBI agent in charge of the criminal probe against Southfield lawyer Geoffrey Fieger tried to bully her when he questioned her about contributions she made at Fieger’s behest to John Edwards’ 2004 presidential campaign.

Under cross-examination by Fieger defense lawyer Gerry Spence, SueEllen Sandner said she was so disgusted with the way FBI agent Jeffrey Rees treated her, she refused Monday to meet with a federal prosecutor in advance of today's testimony if Rees would be there.

“He was fairly aggressive with me when I didn’t say the words he wanted me to say,” Sandner said of her first conversation with Rees in December 2005. He called her shortly after agents raided Fieger’s law firm looking for evidence that Fieger and law partner Vernon (Ven) Johnson recruited 64 people to contribute to Edwards’ 2004 presidential campaign and reimbursed them with law firm funds.

Defense lawyers have conceded that Fieger and Johnson reimbursed employees for contributing, but that the pair didn’t think they were breaking the law. Their lawyers have focused on federal investigative tactics. -- Paralegal: FBI agent tried to bully me in Fieger case

Posted by Ed at 7:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP reports: The Texas Democratic Party was sued Friday by Latino advocacy groups that contend the complicated primary and caucus system used in the March 4 presidential primary unfairly diluted Latino votes.

The League of United Latin American Citizens of Texas and the Mexican American Bar Association of Houston sued in federal court, arguing the party failed to seek clearance required by the U.S. Justice Department for the so-called Texas Two Step. The groups also argue the system effectively discriminates against Latino voters by giving them fewer delegates.

Texas Democrats distribute the state s 193 delegates using both a primary election and a caucus, but the distribution favors state Senate districts that had high voter turnout in the last presidential and gubernatorial elections.

In the March 4 election, that meant predominantly Hispanic districts, where turnout was low in 2004 and 2006, got fewer delegates than others, particularly urban, predominantly black districts. Latino districts favored Hillary Clinton; black districts favored Barack Obama. -- LULAC sued Texas Democratic Party over primary delegates - El Paso Times

Note: If anyone has a copy of the complaint, email it to me. The complaint may be downloaded here. Thanks to Jose Garza for responding to my request.

Posted by Ed at 3:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Detroit Free Press reports: An attorney from Geoffrey Fieger’s law office, called as a prosecution witness to testify in the high profile lawyer’s federal trial for alleged illegal political fund-raising, told jurors today that he’d followed the same practices throughout his 24-year career.

“I’ve done exactly what I’ve done at the Fieger firm that’s the subject of this litigation on numerous occasions through my legal career at another firm,” Jeffrey Danzig testified on direct examination.

Fieger and partner Vernon (Ven) Johnson are charged with breaking campaign finance laws. Money was collected from employees, friends, relatives and other for the 2004 John Edwards presidential bid and the donations were then reimbursed by law firm checks.

The times he’d done the same thing while at the Lopatin-Miller law office were “too many to count,” Danzing said in later cross-examination. -- Attorney working for Fieger: I've followed the same practices for 24 years

Posted by Ed at 7:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The New York Times reports: Groups planning parades or protests at the Democratic National Convention filed a lawsuit here on Friday charging that the Secret Service and the City of Denver are threatening free speech — not because of tight security rules, but by the very lack of them.

The suit, filed in Federal District Court, says that delays in establishing legal parade routes, and unanswered questions about security arrangements around the convention center, are undermining efforts to plan for events when Democrats gather here from Aug. 25 to 28.

Mark Silverstein, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, which is representing 12 groups in the lawsuit, said they had no choice but to turn to the court. With just four months until the convention, the groups want a judge to speed the scheduling and the issuing of rules governing activities outside the Pepsi Center.

At the Democratic convention in Boston in 2004, First Amendment challenges could not be addressed by judges, Mr. Silverstein said, because security measures were announced too late. -- Convention Preparations Prompt Suit by A.C.L.U. - New York Times

Posted by Ed at 2:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From a press release via email: Today, the parties to LWV v. Browning, a lawsuit challenging Florida’s onerous restrictions on third-party voter registration, entered into a binding agreement filed in federal court. The agreement comes the day after plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order that would have barred state authorities from enforcing the restrictions. Under the agreement, Secretary of State Kurt S. Browning stated that he will not enforce the restrictions until the administrative rulemaking process is completed, which he estimates will occur no earlier than early July 2008. As a result, groups and individuals who conduct voter registration drives in Florida can proceed with their voter registration activities without fear of being fined under the law, until at least early July 2008.

Plaintiffs to the lawsuit, League of Women Voters of Florida, the Florida AFL-CIO, and Marilyn Wills, president of the Tallahassee League of Women Voters, are thrilled with this result.

Plaintiffs are represented by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law and the Advancement Project, and by pro bono counsel Debevoise & Plimpton (representing the League of Women Voters of Florida), and Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.

Posted by Ed at 3:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Leaf Chronicle reports: A Clarksville woman has been arrested on three counts of illegal voting.

Carla Thomas Smith, 36, who gave a 718-1/2 Central Ave. address, was booked Friday into the Montgomery County Jail and has since been released on a $1,000 bond.

According to court documents, Smith has a felony conviction, which deprives her of voting rights. ...

The indictment against Smith alleges she broke the law when she registered to vote in August 2004, when she voted in November 2004 and when she voted in November 2006. -- Woman arrested on 3 counts of illegal voting | theleafchronicle.com | The Leaf Chronicle

Posted by Ed at 7:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ars Techinca reports: In a decision issued last week, superior court judge Linda R. Feinberg ruled that a technical review of voting machines used in New Jersey may proceed despite the objections of the manufacturer, Sequoia Voting Systems.

Serious problems emerged in five counties where Sequoia voting machines were used during the New Jersey presidential primaries. Audits conducted by election officials revealed that the electronic tallies didn t match the total counts from the paper trail generated by the machines. Sequoia attributes the problem to operator error and argued that it isn t indicative of a technical malfunction.

In response to that glitch and other irregularities, election officials from Union County decided decided to subject the voting machines to an independent review. They went to Ed Felten, a voting machine security expert who serves as the director of Princeton s Center for Information Technology Policy. Although preliminary evidence from the audit indicated the potential presence of some serious malfunctions, Union County decided not to go forward with the review after receiving legal threats from Sequoia. The voting machine company claimed that an unauthorized third-party review would violate the county s license agreement. Sequoia also argued that unauthorized examinations expose the its proprietary trade secrets to public disclosure and threaten its intellectual property rights. -- Review of NJ e-voting approved; won t be in time for election

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

The Detroit News reports: A lawyer who works for indicted Southfield attorney Geoffrey Fieger testified Monday that Fieger s law firm reimbursed him for $8,000 in political donations he made on behalf of himself, his wife, and his two college-age children.

But attorney Paul Broschay testified he was not promised he would be reimbursed for the checks he wrote to the 2004 presidential campaign of Democrat John Edwards and would have donated to the Edwards campaign even if partners at the firm had not asked him to do so. He did not think he did anything illegal, Broschay told a jury in U.S. District Court.

Fieger, 57, and his law partner, Ven Johnson, 46, were indicted in 2007 on conspiracy and illegal campaign contribution charges. They are accused of making $127,000 in illegal donations to the Edwards campaign by reimbursing employees, employee relatives and law firm vendors. Fieger is also charged with obstruction of justice, a 10-year felony. Both have pleaded not guilty. -- Fieger paid for political donation, lawyer testifies

The Detroit Free Press explains how he can to testify: Paul Broschay, a former Detroit and Trenton police officer, said agents came to his home under the guise of serving a grand jury subpoena, but proceeded to play "good cop, bad cop" in hopes of getting him to say something damaging about Fieger and his law partner, Vernon (Ven) Johnson. Both men are on trial in U.S. District Court in Detroit on charges of illegally reimbursing 64 employees, friends, family members and vendors to contribute $127,000 to Edwards' ill-fated campaign.

Broschay said he tried to cooperate at first, but asked the agents to leave after his daughter, then a Michigan State University student, called home and was hysterical because agents confronted her in her apartment.

"It kinda pissed me off," said Broschay, who testified under a grant of immunity from federal prosecutors. -- Agents bullied me, Fieger lawyer says

Posted by Ed at 7:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The New York Times reports: The League of Women Voters of Florida sued state election officials on Monday to challenge a law that fines voter registration groups for losing registration forms or returning them late.

The lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court here, is likely to amplify the political battle over a handful of laws that have tightened the rules for registration and voting in Florida.

It comes less than two weeks after the league suspended its registration drive, fearing penalties of up to $1,000 per volunteer. And in its complaint, the group said the law “severely burdens efforts by the league and other plaintiffs to encourage civic engagement and strengthen democracy.”

State officials have defended the law as an effort to preserve the integrity of the voter registration process. Jennifer Krell Davis, communications director for Secretary of State Kurt S. Browning, said Monday that she could not comment on the league’s complaint because she had not yet received it. -- Voting Group Sues Florida Over Penalties - New York Times

Posted by Ed at 7:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The New York Times reports: The Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter identification law on Monday, concluding in a splintered decision that the challengers failed to prove that the law’s photo ID requirement placed an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.

The 6-to-3 ruling kept the door open to future lawsuits that provided more evidence. But this theoretical possibility was small comfort to the dissenters or to critics of voter ID laws, who predicted that a more likely outcome than successful lawsuits would be the spread of measures that would keep some legitimate would-be voters from the polls.

Voting experts said the ruling was likely to complicate election administration, leading to both more litigation and more legislation, at least in states with Republican legislative majorities, but would probably have a limited impact on this year’s presidential voting.

The issue has been intensely partisan, with Republicans supporting increased identification requirements for voters and Democrats opposing them. In what the court described as the “lead opinion,” which was written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the court acknowledged that the record of the case contained “no evidence” of the type of voter fraud the law was ostensibly devised to detect and deter, the effort by a voter to cast a ballot in another person’s name. ...

The three others who made up the majority, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito Jr., said in an opinion by Justice Scalia that the law was so obviously justified as “a generally applicable, nondiscriminatory voting regulation” that there was no basis for scrutinizing the record to assess the impact on any individual voters. “This is an area where the dos and don’ts need to be known in advance of the election,” Justice Scalia said. -- In a 6-to-3 Vote, Justices Uphold a Voter ID Law

Nina Totenberg on NPR has a good roundup of interviews with Rick Hasen, Pam Karlan, and others.

The Washington Post had a live discussion with Roy Schotland yesterday. The Post has an article today.

Joan Biskupic has an article in USA Today.

Posted by Ed at 7:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

TalkLeft reports: Flamboyant attorney and legal analyst Geoff Fieger, perhaps best known for his defense of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, is on trial in federal court in Detroit. He and his law partner, Van Johnson, are charged with having employees at their law firm and others donate to John Edwards' presidential campaign and then reimbursing them, in violation of federal campaign laws. Fieger is also charged with obstruction of justice for allegedly concealing a memo and tampering with grand jury witnesses. -- Gerry Spence Opens for Fieger in MI Criminal Trial - TalkLeft: The Politics Of Crime

Posted by Ed at 6:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Philly.com reports: Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Ramy Djerassi has rejected a request to extend Philadelphia poll hours to 10 p.m., and to distribute emergency paper ballots to all precincts where there have been reports of broken voting machines. -- Judge: Polls Will Close As Scheduled | Philly | 04/22/2008

Voter Action, a national voter rights group, has asked a Philadelphia judge to extend voting hours tonight until 10 p.m., and to use paper ballots at all voting places where broken machines have been reported. The city's Board of Elections seems certain to object. The hearing is expected to begin momentarily. -- Voter Group Requests Extended Poll Hours

Posted by Ed at 6:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Politiker NJ reports: Rob Andrews wants to render Frank Lautenberg’s county line advantage obsolete.

Andrews announced today that he’s filing suit against 13 mostly northern county clerks to seek a “fair and open Democratic primary” that requires county clerks give “fair and equal” ballot position to both U.S. Senate candidates at the State Superior Court. The challenge was first reported on the liberal Web site Blue Jersey.

While Andrews has the county line in seven southern counties, Lautenberg has the line in the 12 other counties that award it -- a big advantage in a primary with an expected low turnout.

Andrews cited a state statute, N.J.S.A. 19:23-26.1, that says primary candidates for Senate or Governor must appear in the first column and apart from candidates for lower offices. -- Andrews sues for an open primary | Politicker NJ

Posted by Ed at 9:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Birmingham News reports:
A panel of three federal judges granted Gov. Bob Riley s request Wednesday to extend George Bowman s tenure as a Jefferson County commissioner, but not for as long as the governor wanted.

Riley now has until May 19 to get clearance from the U.S. Department of Justice for his appointment of Bowman to the District 1 vacancy on the County Commission. ...

Last week Riley asked the federal panel to extend its deadline until after the U.S. Supreme Court and Alabama Supreme Court decide separate cases challenging the governor's contention that only he has the authority to fill vacancies when commissioners leave office early.

In Wednesday's order, the judges denied Riley that much time, but said a shorter extension is reasonable. -- George Bowman gets one-month extension as Jefferson County commissioner- al.com

Note and Disclosure: I am one of the attorneys for the plaintiff. The order is
here.

Posted by Ed at 7:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Update: Steve Rankin has sent me a link to the complaint.

Free Citizen blog reports: In an open primary, a party's primary ballot is available to any voter who wants it. There are two types of open primaries: Mississippi is one of the 13 states with "open primary, public record," meaning that each primary voter's choice of party is publicly recorded. Idaho, in contrast, is one of the eight states with "open primary, private choice": each primary voter picks a party in secret, and no record is made of this choice. ...

The recently-ended session of the heavily-Republican Idaho legislature failed to pass legislation modifying the primary election law. The Senate did pass a bill, 20-15, to switch to "open primary, public record," but the House refused to consider it. The Republican governor opposes changing the primary setup, as the state GOP chairman also steadfastly has. The chairman is up for re-election at the state convention in June, and he may have a contest from former state Sen. Rod Beck, who has spearheaded the efforts to change the primary election law.

Late Friday, the Republican Party filed a new federal lawsuit against the state-mandated open primary. The Idaho GOP will be able to cite U. S. District Judge Allen Pepper's 2007 ruling that Mississippi's open primary law is unconstitutional. If the 5th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans agrees with Pepper, the Idaho Republicans will also be able to cite that decision. Mississippi Democratic Party v. Barbour. -- Free Citizen: Idaho Republicans Again Challenge Open Primary Law

Posted by Ed at 7:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Update: The suit has been filed and the complaint is available here.

UPI reports: The Democratic National Committee wants to get its dispute with John McCain s campaign on public financing into the U.S. courts, party officials said.

The committee plans to file suit Monday, asking the U.S. District Court in Washington to order the Federal Election Commission to investigate McCain s decision to reject public financing for the primary, The New York Times reported.

The six-member commission has four vacancies and is unable to take any action because it cannot meet with a quorum. The Democratic majority in Congress has objected to some of President George W. Bush s reappointments. -- Democrats want to sue McCain over loan - UPI.com

Posted by Ed at 2:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Charleston Gazette reports: Anonymous advertising in West Virginia political campaigns would open the door for a repeat of the 2004 Supreme Court race, where voters did not learn until later who was spending millions of dollars on behalf of candidates, several lawyers told a federal judge Wednesday.

But the Center for Individual Freedom argued that West Virginia s election laws - which require the group to disclose its donors if it buys political advertising - violate its free speech rights under the First Amendment.

The Virginia-based organization asked U.S. District Judge David A. Faber to grant it an injunction allowing it to advertise in the upcoming state Supreme Court election without disclosing its spending or its donors. The state s primary election is May 13.

Last month, the center filed a lawsuit against the state s top election official, Secretary of State Betty Ireland. Mercer County Prosecuting Attorney Timothy Boggess was also NAMEd in the suit as a representative of all the state s prosecutors.

Three of the four Democratic candidates for state Supreme Court have joined in fighting the injunction, as have the West Virginia AFL-CIO, the state Education Association, the Council of Churches and other groups. -- Lawyers argue over rules for political ads

Posted by Ed at 8:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Arizona Republic reports: The boundaries of the state s legislative districts for this fall s elections will remain the same as they have been for the past three years.

That s the immediate impact of a state Court of Appeals ruling handed down Thursday in a redistricting dispute.

And it could spell the end of the seven-year legal battle, since any continued fight would only affect legislative elections in 2010. After that, a new census is taken and new lines are drawn.

The court rejected an appeal from a coalition of Latinos and Democrats who claimed the map outlining Arizona s 30 legislative districts was drawn without consideration of the districts competitiveness. -- State s legislative-district boundaries to remain same

The court's opinion is on its website, Arizona Minority Coalition v. Arizona IRC, CA-CV 07-0301.

Posted by Ed at 7:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Hattiesburg American reports: A decision on whether Hattiesburg s City Council wards should be redrawn now rests with U.S. District Judge Keith Starrett.

The trial of a 2006 lawsuit against the city ended Wednesday with the city s attorneys not calling any witnesses.

Starrett did not provide a date for a decision but gave attorneys for both sides 30 days to submit written arguments. The plaintiffs attorney is Ellis Turnage; representing the city is Jerry Mills. ...

The group of black residents who filed the lawsuit want Starrett to eliminate college students from the mix and redistrict the city in accordance with 2006 data that suggest blacks would comprise at least 55 percent of the total voting age population when transient students are excluded.

The lawsuit says the City Council unfairly included more than 3,000 transient University of Southern Mississippi students in the equation used to draw Hattiesburg s 2002 redistricting plan.

They argue that including the students in the city s voting age population dilutes the strength of black voters. -- Hattiesburg American - www.hattiesburgamerican.com - Hattiesburg, Miss.

The complaint can be downloaded here.

Posted by Ed at 7:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Birmingham News reports: Gov. Bob Riley asked a panel of federal judges Tuesday to grant Jefferson County Commissioner George Bowman more time in office while other courts decide legal disputes over who fills county commission vacancies.

Cases are pending before the Alabama Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court over whether the new commissioner should be chosen by the governor or elected by voters.

Riley appointed Bowman in November to the District 1 seat on the Jefferson County Commission, after Larry Langford resigned to become Birmingham s mayor. -- Alabama Gov. Bob Riley asks for extension to keep Jefferson County Commission seat filled as courts rule- al.com

Note and disclosure: I am one of the counsel for the plaintiff in this case. Governor Riley's motion is here.

Posted by Ed at 7:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Tribune Star reports: The battle for Terre Haute City Hall continues with the latest shots coming from Mayor Duke Bennett’s legal team.

Lawyers for Bennett filed a new appeal with the Indiana Court of Appeals this week asking the court to overturn Vigo Circuit Court Judge David Bolk’s Dec. 21 ruling that Bennett was subject to the Hatch Act while he was running for mayor.

Former Mayor Kevin Burke, who lost the Nov. 6 election to Bennett by 110 votes, earlier had appealed another part of Bolk’s ruling. Burke appealed the part that allowed Bennett to take office because he was no longer in violation of the Hatch Act when he took office on Jan. 1. ...

Burke contended that Bennett should not have been eligible to run for mayor because he worked as director of operations at the Hamilton Center, a not-for-profit mental health organization that receives federal funding through its Head Start program. The Hatch Act is a federal law that limits the political activity of employees of some not-for-profits that receive federal money.

In December, Bolk ruled Bennett was indeed subject to the Hatch Act; however, Bolk also ruled that Bennett would no longer be in violation of the Act when he took office as mayor. As a result, Bennett took office as mayor. In his ruling, Bolk also noted other avenues had existed for challenging Bennett’s candidacy before Election Day. -- Bennett’s lawyers file new Hatch ruling appeal

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

Harris News Service reports: Democratic and Republican negotiators clashed Wednesday over how strict to make legislation requiring most voters under age 65 to show photo identification to cast a ballot.

A conference committee of six lawmakers, three from each the House and Senate, have started discussing what elements to include in a compromise bill designed to pass both legislative chambers.

Each body has passed its own legislation enacting a photo ID requirement but the Senate s proposal is more stringent than the House-backed measure that passed last week.

The two Democrats on the panel, though, suggested that Gov. Kathleen Sebelius was likely to veto either measure. They urged Republican negotiators to proceed with what they say are less onerous ID requirements that have a better chance of becoming law. -- Hutchinson News Online

Posted by Ed at 7:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Des Moines Register reports: A Polk County District Court judge has ordered Iowa Secretary of State Michael Mauro to stop using languages other than English in the state’s official voter registration forms.

Judge Douglas Staskal ruled in favor of U.S. Rep. Steve King, an Iowa Republican, who sued state officials last year, contending they were violating the state’s English-language law. He brought the suit against Gov. Chet Culver, who previously served as secretary of state, and Mauro, contending they had placed illegal voting forms on the secretary of state’s Web site.

The dispute began shortly before Election Day in 2006, when King demanded that Culver remove voting information in languages other than English from the Web site. The site offered information in Spanish, Laotian, Bosnian and Vietnamese.

Non-English voter forms were removed from the the state's Web site late Thursday afternoon.

King, a former state senator, said the materials were illegal because under an English-language law authored by King and signed by Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack in 2002, all official government communications must be in English. -- Judge: Iowa voting forms violate official English law | DesMoinesRegister.com | The Des Moines Register

Posted by Ed at 7:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In Florida State Conference of the NAACP v. Browning, the 11th Circuit has reversed the injunction against Florida's voter registration law. Here is the opening paragraph of the decision:

This is an appeal of a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of a Florida voter registration statute as being preempted by two different federal statutes. The state law would require as a precondition of registering to vote for the first time in Florida that the voter disclose her driver’s license number or the last four digits of her Social Security number on the registration application, and that this number match up with the number for this voter contained in the state driver’s license database or the Social Security Administration’s database, respectively. The district court held that plaintiffs, several organizations representing the interests of minority communities in Florida, had standing to challenge the statute, would likely succeed at trial on the merits of their claim that federal law preempts the enforcement of the state law, and would suffer irreparable injury absent provisional relief. Accordingly, the court preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of the state statute. We affirm the district court’s decision on plaintiffs’ standing to prosecute this action and reverse its decision granting the preliminary injunction.

Posted by Ed at 6:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Birmingham News reports: A federal appellate court today ordered former Gov. Don Siegelman released from prison while he appeals his 2006 conviction, but denied co-defendant Richard Scrushy s request to be released.

Siegelman attorney Vince Kilborn said Siegelman would be released sometime Friday morning. His wife and his daughter, Dana, are driving out to get him, Kilborn said.

Scrushy attorney Art Leach said he had been told the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied Scrushy s request, but had no more details this evening.

Siegelman has been in an Oakdale, La., prison camp for nearly nine months. A federal jury in 2006 convicted Siegelman and Scrushy of federal funds bribery. Prosecutors alleged Scrushy bought a seat on a state board with a $500,000 donation to Siegelman s lottery campaign.

The judges wrote that Siegelman met both requirements for an appeal bond: He is not a flight risk and his appeal raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal or an order for a new trial. -- Siegelman to be released from prison, Scrushy must stay in - Breaking News from The Birmingham News - al.com

Posted by Ed at 7:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP reports: Puerto Rico Gov. Anibal Acevedo Vila indignantly denied wrongdoing Thursday and gave no sign he would abandon his re-election effort after being charged with campaign finance violations that carry a penalty of 20 years in prison.

Acevedo, a superdelegate to this summer's Democratic convention, accused U.S. prosecutors of pursuing a politically motivated indictment alleging that the governor and a dozen other people conspired to illegally pay off his campaign debts. ...

Acevedo served in Washington as the island's nonvoting delegate to Congress then was elected governor in 2004 after campaigning on an anti-corruption platform. ...

In a brief address on Puerto Rican television Thursday evening, he repeated his denials and accused U.S. authorities of distracting him from trying to revive the island's struggling economy. "They want blood not your well being," he said of federal prosecutors. The governor did not take questions.

His indictment on 19 charges, including conspiracy to violate federal campaign laws, conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service and giving false testimony to the FBI, made him the latest U.S. governor to run into legal trouble. -- Feds charge P.Rico governor, 12 others - Yahoo! News

Posted by Ed at 7:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AP reports: Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism Monday about the federal government s authority to block the governor of Alabama s appointment of a fellow Republican to a vacant county commission seat representing a mostly black and heavily Democratic district.

The case is over whether Gov. Bob Riley needed clearance from the Justice Department under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which requires Alabama and several other states -- most of them in the South -- to get federal approval before changing election procedures that affect minority voters. ...

Local Democrats challenged the appointment, arguing that a special election should have been held as in the past and that Riley's decision amounted to just the kind of voting-rights change that requires Justice Department approval.

Last January, the Justice Department agreed and said Riley's appointment appeared to weaken minority voters. Later, a three-judge panel in U.S. District Court in Montgomery ruled that Riley's move was unlawful and vacated the appointment. -- High court questions federal authority over Alabama in governor s pick - Breaking News from The Birmingham News - al.com

Posted by Ed at 12:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here is the transcript of Monday's argument in 07-77.pdf , Riley v. Kennedy.

Posted by Ed at 12:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Governor Riley has filed a long-winded notice of appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court from the Judgment in Plump v. Riley.

Posted by Ed at 5:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

CBS 13 in Sacramento reports: A man suspected of state voter registration fraud was arrested on Sac State's campus. Accused of signing up fake people to vote!

Why would there be a manhunt by the election fraud unit of the Secretary of State for this mystery guy, 45-year-old Don Cornell Williams.

He's known by state officials for registering voters in Southern California.

"That's what he does for a living," says Corey, a friend of the suspect. ...

Corey says some unknown organization pays Williams to get signatures. He says Williams told him gets cash for every signature or registered voter card he turns in. Yesterday the state election fraud unit got a tip Williams was at Sac State trying to register more people. They asked campus police to capture him on a warrant out of Orange County for completing voter registration cards using false names. -- cbs13.com - Man Arrested For State Voter Registration Fraud

Posted by Ed at 5:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Birmingham News reports: Three Jefferson County residents asked the Alabama Supreme Court Thursday to quickly overturn a Circuit Court judge's ruling that William Bell is entitled to be the District 1 county commissioner.

Lawyers for Patricia Working, Rick Erdemir and Floyd McGinnis filed a notice of appeal to the state's high court and recommended a March 28 deadline for written legal arguments.

They requested an expedited review of Judge Scott Vowell's ruling Tuesday against them and Gov. Bob Riley in a dispute over how to fill the commission seat held by Larry Langford before he resigned to become Birmingham's mayor. -- Jefferson County residents ask Alabama high court to quickly overturn county commissioner ruling- al.com

Posted by Ed at 5:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Birmingham News reports: William Bell is entitled to be the District 1 representative on the Jefferson County Commission, Circuit Court Judge Scott Vowell ruled Tuesday.

The case will next go to the Alabama Supreme Court. The state's high court must lift an injunction before county election officials can certify Bell as the winner of the Feb. 5 special election to replace Larry Langford.

Three county residents, only one of whom lived in District 1, challenged the election date in a suit filed Jan. 31. Albert Jordan, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he would file an appeal today. ...

Vowell's decision Tuesday upheld a state law that allows special elections - in Jefferson County only - when an office is vacated. The judge also ruled that Gov. Bob Riley did not have authority to appoint George Bowman to the commission. ...

A spokeswoman for Riley said he also would appeal. -- Judge rules William Bell is District 1 representative on Jefferson County Commission; case goes to state Supreme Court- al.com

Posted by Ed at 5:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Thomas Haymore, one the Stanford Law School students who did such great work on our brief, has written this summary of the case for ScotusWiki.

<