Tuesday, November 03, 2015
https://i.imgur.com/gsB8bsM.jpg
Romania right about now.
# posted by gt @ 10:42 PM
I'll see if i can upload the other short video segments,
Today I voted.
It went fairly well.
I went in right at noon. He asked for my ID, I said no, they asked again, I explained I had a constitutional right to vote, brief impasse, they let me vote.
I ended up voting straight party Libertarian. I had expected to vote GOP; I didnt even know the law a Lib. in the race. This was for mayor and council.
Then I went a couple hours later with my roommate when she tried to vote. They did not let her,
but only gave her a provisional ballot which won't be counted.
I was asked to stop videoing. I declined. They said they were calling the cops and I would be arrested.
I'm not actually sure yet if I was in the wrong or they were. I ended up only getting a minute or two on video; I must have hit the wrong buttons. We left before any police arrived.
As expected, Hogsett won the mayor's race.
Monday, November 02, 2015
Response to Stephanopolis:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/a-feasible-roadmap-to-compulsory-voting/413422/
As is often the case, Nick Stephanopolis is wrong with his latest voting reform scheme,
but wrong in a way that is useful thought experiment. I'm not it all sure that he's serious about his proposal, but it's certainly not Smithian snark, more of an exploration of the hows and whys of voting.
He suggests that municipalities could try mandatory voting, and then the memetic fitness of the scheme would make it spread like wildfire, or at least at marijuana legalization speeds.
What he's wrong about includes at least the constitutional problems, both federal and state.
Voting shall be free and equal, reads most constitutions. A compelled vote is not free. Elections are not equal where on one side of the railroad tracks, a person must vote, because an ordinance says so, while on the other side one can't vote, perhaps because one doesn't have or won't show an ID.
But that's just on paper. In some states the free and equal clause is vestigial, either never litigated or given lax scrutiny. Do you know your state's landmark cases on the free and equal elections clause? In your state it might be called the free and open elections clause, or you might live somewhere else like New York where the text is unique, but has been given teeth by the courts.
There are issues of preclusion, home rule, public policy,and so forth, that any judge could rely to invalidate the compelled voting if they just didnt like it.
Meanwhile there are federal constitutional issues. The proposal arguable violates the first, fourth, maybe 5th, and probably 24th amendments. A poll tax for not voting would be a new one, and some court think only an exact duplication of the facts of Harman v Forssennius triggers 24th amendment review. But the better view is if you can't charge for voting, you can't charge for not voting either, because either approach interferes in the integrity of the election process.
What would the standard of review be under the First Amendment? Strict scrutiny under Norman v Reed? Strict scrutiny under Burson v Freeman? The Anderson v Celebrezze balancing test? The permissive scrutiny standard of Buckley v Valeo, or the even laxer Burdick v Takushi test?
Legal realists would ask, would the judges like this. I think not, but I'm often wrong. Much would depend on how the public felt about it. If universally accepted, the judges might go along for the ride. Somehow I doubt that would be the case. Even the liberal media would have issues.
Would there be religious accommodations? Conscientious objector status? Loopholes? Or maybe a city would water down such a proposal to remove all teeth and be merely hortatory.
Currently, I fight to be allowed to vote. I live in Indiana and my votes get tossed in the trash because I won't show ID, since to do so is an obvious 24th Amendment violation, as well as an unwarranted search and severe burden on my fundamental right to vote. But I'm a curmudgeon. Make it mandatory to vote and I'd be among the first to resist.
Sunday, November 01, 2015
http://www.newsleader.com/story/news/local/2015/10/30/voters-must-have-photo-id/74889138/
Messick said her office has issued about seven voter ID cards since the 2014 law went into effect requiring photo IDs. She said no paperwork is required to obtain the photo ID, just a signed statement from the person swearing they are who they say they are, and they must provide the last four numbers of their Social Security number.
Anyone know the legal situation for making a voter provide a social security number?
Is this allowed under HAVA, Moter-Voter, etc., or is it a prohibited practice under the 1974 Privacy Act?
It turns out that Virginia is grandfathered under the privacy act.
Are all the States using the 4-digit HAVV system?
Forty-three states currently use HAVV. Although the 4-digit HAVV system is designed to track usage by all states and territories, the law does not require all states to use the system. Seven States are not using the 4-digit HAVV system.
Six States (New Mexico, Hawaii, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia) are “grandfathered” under section 7 of the Privacy Act, and are permitted to use the 9-digit SSN on applications for voter registration. None of these states currently uses the 4-digit HAVV verification.
The States are required to verify the driver’s license number against the state MVA database. Only in situations where no driver’s license exists should the states verify the last four digits of the new voter registrant’s Social Security Number (SSN). The State submits the last digits of the SSN, name, and date of birth to the MVA for verification with SSA. In addition, SSA is required to report whether its records indicate that the registrant is deceased.
To ensure the privacy of the SSN, HAVA restricted the collection to only the last four digits of the SSN. HAVA provides that these last four digits do not constitute an SSN.
So on the one hand it's not a privacy act violation, and can be allowed under HAVA, but on the other hand they aren't supposed to do the last-4 routine unless someone doesn't have a driver's license, and virginia's practice seems to be to ask everyone for the last 4 to get a voter ID. So the voter's privacy is violated one way or the other.
To vote on Nov. 3, registered voters must present a photo ID at the polls, Messick said. Acceptable identification includes a driver’s license, passport, employee ID, credit card displaying photograph, membership card with photo, military ID, nursing home ID and student ID.
So at least it doesnt have to be a government issued photo ID, a sam's club card would do. I don't know of any photo ID's that are free (or don't require divulging ssn.) I continue to think that all this extra hoopjumping is a 24th Amendment violation similar enough to the one at issue is Harman v Forssenius.
Contrary to what some courts have held, a 24th Amendment violation doesn't have to duplicate the exact fact pattern of Harman. That's not how landmark cases work. It's enough that extra paperwork barriers are added that have the result or intent of deterring or suppressing voting.
Saturday, October 31, 2015
Elkhart Indiana election board smugly strongarms candidates into adding disclaimers.
http://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/Election-Board-official-says-ignorance-isnt-an-excuse-for-campaign-violations-338517282.html
It's interesting that there's an Elkhart Party. Small regional parties used to be pretty common in Indiana, but this is the first one I've seen in awhile.
http://www.theelkhartparty.com/
http://www.elkharttruth.com/news/politics/Elections/2015/10/28/Elkhart-County-Election-Board-discusses-campaign-finance-complaints-against-Elkhart-Goshen-candidates.html
http://www.elkharttruth.com/news/politics/Elections/2015/10/28/Elkhart-County-Election-Board-discusses-campaign-finance-complaints-against-Elkhart-Goshen-candidates.html
I wrote a commentary in the comments section to the wndu article, but it looks like they declined to publish it. Maybe it'll show up tomorrow.
Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by WNDU.
If there's any ignorance on display here, it's the board. They seem to be unaware that the United States Supreme Court ruled in 1960 that disclaimer rules like these violate the First Amendment. Last year Marion County paid $80,000 to settle a case on this stuff in Mulholland v Election Board. That's on top of $150,000 the Marion County board spent to hire lawyers to handle the case. I'd be happy to represent the Elkhart Party candidates if they are interested in following up. The board should promptly send them an apology.
The controlling cases include Talley v California, McIntyre v Ohio, and Stewart v Taylor. I'm Stewart.
Friday, October 30, 2015
http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2015/oct/28/how-voter-id-and-voter-turnout-could-affect-electi/
| Jackson Free Press | - Oct 28, 2015 |
|
The 2012 research was conducted as an exit poll for voters, and the demographics match the Census population statistics of Mississippi. The 2012 survey estimated that 1.7 percent of Mississippians who voted in November of that year did not have a valid form of photo ID. That 1.7 percent was 68 percent black and 41 percent from households with less than $15,000 in annual income.
The demographics of the 98 percent who had IDs is: 60 percent white, 38 percent black and 2 percent "other."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terrysmith2/voter-id-laws-and-the-gho_b_8411472.html
The basic contours of the public discourse on voter ID laws are fairly clear. In-person voting fraud is rare. As Judge Richard Posner has concluded, restrictive voter ID laws are mainly the product of Republican legislatures targeting Democratic-leaning constituencies. Chief among those Democratic constituencies are African Americans and Latinos.
http://www.wschronicle.com/2015/10/federal-judge-denies-motion-dismiss-case-filed-n-c-naacp/
Above: The Dr. Rev. William J. Barber II, president of the N.C. NAACP, speaks to the crowd in Winston-Salem this summer as the N.C. NAACP vs. McCrory trial was going on. (Chronicle File Photo)
N.C. photo ID federal lawsuit will go on
By Tevin Stinson
The Chronicle
A federal judge has denied a motion by the State of North Carolina to dismiss parts of the lawsuit filed by the N.C. NAACP and the Southern Coalition for Social Justice that challenges North Carolina’s voter-identification requirement.
Thursday, October 29, 2015
http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/elkhart-election-board-clears-candidates-after-complaints/36102302
(plays video)
The Elkhart County Election Board cleared six candidates of possible campaign violations regarding disclaimers placed on campaign items.
Monday, October 26, 2015
Saturday, October 24, 2015
Friday, October 23, 2015
# posted by gt @ 10:42 PM
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article41189223.html
Judge refuses to dismiss NC voter ID challenge
This is one of several suits going on; there was a similar headline from the same judge back in the spring. That trial was held, no decision yet.
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Biden out of the race, won't run.
# posted by gt @ 12:09 AM
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
http://www.ktvu.com/news/33724074-story video.
student election results withheld because winners were too white.
# posted by gt @ 11:32 AM
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2015/10/murray_energy_to_pay_5000_pena.html#incart_river_home
Because they are a corporation, they would lose an as-applied challenge, but the statute they were charged under is unconstitutional, per McIntyre, and would fall given the right plaintiff and lawyer.
# posted by gt @ 11:17 AM
Sunday, October 18, 2015
Saturday, October 17, 2015
Friday, October 16, 2015
Thursday, October 15, 2015
canadian eletions soon?
# posted by gt @ 12:24 AM
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article38915277.html
I wonder whether, when KS secretary of state Kobach was given prosecutorial powers, he was also given prosecutorial immunity.
update: this probaly answers my conserns:
Not explicitly. The bill vests the independent authority to prosecute these crimes in the AG, SoS, and district attorneys. But, I think prosecutorial immunity flows with the power to prosecute. The most recent case in Kansas on the absolute and qualified immunities is McCormick v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs. I think the explicit grant of prosecutorial power to the SoS is enough, especially since Chemerinsky points out cases where social workers and police, performing prosecutorial-like functions were granted prosecutorial immunity.
# posted by gt @ 11:37 AM
Monday, October 12, 2015
Sunday, October 11, 2015
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mask-face-covering-voting-1.3266109
canadian voter swear masks to protest arab women being allowed to wear face coverings,
Saturday, October 10, 2015
http://lpin.org/candidates/
Indiana LP is running a handful of candidates for various offices. I don't project any winners here.
# posted by gt @ 10:05 PM
http://indianatalks.com/site/2015/03/complaints-filed-with-indiana-election-division-against-mike-pence-monica-boyer-and-others/
back in march a disclaimer complaint was filed against governor pence. just found it while googling for something else. i actually met pence for the first time today, at a sikh festival downtown.
i will next google to see if there's been any action on the complaint.
http://www.tribstar.com/news/local_news/election-board-seeks-to-resolve-issues-left-by-candidate-s/article_27bab08e-e605-5fd0-a1cf-b3305882fcf2.html
Yeah, they let Elliot off with a warning but then hassled another guy, Don Morris, about some billboards.
Friday, October 09, 2015
Wednesday, October 07, 2015
San Jose gets rid of unconstitutional disclaimer regulations.
http://www.dailydemocrat.com/general-news/20151006/san-jose-council-makes-sweeping-changes-to-election-law/3
The council also scaled back another local election requirement. Candidates will no longer need to disclose who paid for billboards, yard signs, fliers, posters -- only mailings as required by the state FPPC.
# posted by gt @ 11:47 AM
Tuesday, October 06, 2015
Monday, October 05, 2015
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
MCBA Members and Friends,
Please be advised that former Rep. Bill Crawford will lie in state in the Indiana Statehouse Rotunda this Thursday, October 1 from 11:00 am to 8:00 pm, with a wreath laying ceremony at 12:00 Noon.
The funeral will take place on Friday, October 2 at Eastern Star Baptist Church (5750 E. 30th Street). Calling will be from 9:00 am to 11:00 am, with services immediately following.
There is also a great article entitled "Remembering Bill Crawford" posted on the Election Law Blog. If you are interested, you may read the article at http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76253.
# posted by gt @ 11:40 PM
Another shoe drops: 10 years after Indiana introduced Voter ID, Fort Wayne Indiana will now be using computers to decide who gets to vote. The ID's will be read by a magnetic scanner, which will decide if the ID is "valid." What could possibly go wrong?
http://www.news-sentinel.com/news/local/Fort-Wayne-voters-to-use-electronic-poll-books-in-November-s-election--replacing-cumbersome-paper-books
Monday, September 28, 2015
http://www.fayobserver.com/opinion/local_columns/troy-williams-talking-politics-at-zeke-s/article_c60a4274-9245-53b1-ae2f-7af898afe181.html
good column on voter ID. wrong, but good.
Hi Troy. Well written column on voter ID. I linked to it from my blog, http://ballots.blogspot.com, which almost no one reads.
A few quibbles:
I'm confused by the Democrats' strategy, since the Supreme Court has already ruled that requiring an ID to vote is constitutional. North Carolina Democrats are fighting voter ID fiercely, in spite of its constitutionality already decided in other states. I think making sure everyone who wants to vote has an ID would be the better approach. But what do I know
The Supreme Court has not ruled that voter ID is constitutional. There were 3 votes for that, and 3 against, but the deciding 3 votes ruled that plaintiffs had filed the wrong kind of lawsuit for what they were trying to do.
As far as other states, some states, like missouri, found that voter ID violates the state constitution. Other states, like Texas, ruled voter ID violates the voting right act, so I'm not sure they ruled on the constitutional issues.
I'm a Republican, and I won't show a voter ID because it violates the 24th and 4th Amendment - if they want to got through my pockets they can get a warrant.
I paid $20 for that ID, so they can't use it for voting purposes, because to do so would be a tax.
Cordially, Robbin Stewart.
We agree to disagree, however, thanks for the feedback...
|
Sunday, September 27, 2015
http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2015/09/courts_the_scot_7.html
COURTS - "THE SCOTUS’S SECRET POWER - CHOOSING THE CASES IT WILL HEAR (WITHOUT DISCLOSING THE VOTE)" WHAT ABOUT INDIANA?
Stanford law professor Jeffrey Fisher has an
op-ed today in the
NY Times that asks for some transparency on how the various judges vote in deciding whether to take a case.
Should Justice Scalia disclose his votes on whether to grant cert?
Scalia, in Doe v Reed, mocked those who prefer to participate in politics anonymously, such as anonymous petitions, pamphlets, or the secret ballot.
He could set an example by disclosing his own votes. I think Scalia is dead wrong about all this, but he could at least be consistent.
Saturday, September 26, 2015
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/25/bill-crawford-long-time-indiana-lawmaker-dies/72806814/
That's the
Crawford v Marion County Election Board Bill Crawford.
He also was remembered Friday as an advocate for equality and as a lawmaker who fought for affordable housing and social justice.
Friday, September 25, 2015
But when party leaders lack the power to bring their recalcitrant members along, those forces of centrism inevitably diminish. - Pildes.
I couldn't possibly comment - Francis Urquhart.
speaker of the house to resign.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/26/us/john-boehner-to-resign-from-congress.html
when i was a kid in high school i was the speaker of the house in a ymca-sponsored mock legislature in delaware, and it strongly influenced my interest in politics and elections.
# posted by gt @ 12:15 PM
Thursday, September 24, 2015
http://www.stuartmagazine.com/up-front/noteworthy/martin-county-residents-who-register-vote-can-enjoy-free-chick-fil-sandwich
dunno if this is legal in florida
two birds with one stone: taxpayers will fund a ritual animal sacrifice for those registering to vote, or updating their registration, on national voter registration day.
in some states, it's illegal to pay someone to vote or register, but i genuinely am not sure about florida.
RALEIGH
A Wake County judge has refused a request from state lawmakers to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the Voter ID requirement.
Judge Mike Morgan issued his ruling on Wednesday, almost four weeks after a hearing on the matter.
Lawmakers amended the state's Voter ID requirement this legislative session on the eve of a trial in federal court.
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article36281472.html#storylink=cpy
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
# posted by gt @ 10:34 AM
Monday, September 21, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/books/review/wil-haygoods-showdown-thurgood-marshall-and-the-supreme-court-nomination-that-changed-america.html
Or perhaps it’s because Johnson’s principal biographer, Robert Caro, hasn’t yet reached that part of the story....
Because there had been no Supreme Court vacancies handy, Johnson, the consummate wheeler-dealer, fashioned one, naming Ramsey Clark attorney general in order to induce his father, Justice Tom C. Clark, to quit. Johnson could then slide Marshall, solicitor general at the time, into Clark’s slot.... But for the real inside story of how all this happened, we’ll just have to wait — for Robert Caro.
# posted by gt @ 11:23 PM
Court suspends Pennsylvania attorney general's law license
Constitutional crisis in PA raises election law issues.
# posted by gt @ 11:07 PM
Thursday, September 17, 2015
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/why-non-voters-matter/405250/
"While 52 percent of those earning more than $150,000 voted, only 24 percent of those earning less than $10,000 went to the polls."
That's interesting. Is it because the poor are too busy with survival, and the rich have more leisure time for items further down Maslow's hierarchy?
Because, in dollar terms, it is cheaper for the poor to vote; their opportunity costs are lower. I'm not going to take this to the Scalia/Posner extreme and suggest we do away with the secret ballot so that busy executives can just hire a poor person to go vote for them, the way lawyers hire homeless people to stand in line for them to reserve seats at the supreme court's bar section.
Monday, September 14, 2015
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|
| 09/11/2015 | 12 | ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by Phil Bryant, James Hood, Delbert Hosemann.(Pizzetta, Harold) (Entered: 09/11/2015) |
| 08/27/2015 | | Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Telephone Status Conference held on 8/27/2015. Participants: Graham P. Carner, Jonathan M. Eichelberger and Harold Pizzetta. State of Mississippi shall file Supplemental Memorandum by 9/16/2015; Plaintiffs should file Response by 9/30/2015; and any Rebuttal is due by 10/7/2015. Motion Hearing set as to 2MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and MOTION for Preliminary Injunction for 10/9/2015 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 5B (Jackson) before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. (JS) (Entered: 08/27/2015) |
| 08/24/2015 | 11 | NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan Matthew Eichelberger on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Eichelberger, Jonathan) (Entered: 08/24/2015) |
| 08/21/2015 | 10 | Defendant(s) Exhibit List to 8/21/2015 hearing. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D-1 Mailed Flyer)(JS) (Entered: 08/21/2015) |
| 08/21/2015 | | Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves: Motion Hearing held on 8/21/2015 re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Anonymous Company, Anonymous Roe and Anonymous Doe. Appearances: Graham P. Carner and Harold Pizzetta. Court heard arguments on the issues and reserved to rule after additional briefing. Telephone Status Conference set for 8/27/2015 at 2:00 PM before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. Court Reporter/Transcriber Cherie Bond, Telephone Number : 601-608-4186. (JS) Modified on 8/27/2015 (JS). (Entered: 08/21/2015) |
| 08/21/2015 | 9 | MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by James Hood (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Mailer, # 2 Exhibit B - FEC Manual)(Pizzetta, Harold) (Entered: 08/21/2015) |
| 08/21/2015 | | DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #5: Disregard docket entry #5; this document has been re-filed as docket entry #8. (RRL) (Entered: 08/21/2015) |
| 08/20/2015 | 8 | SUMMONS Returned Executed by Anonymous Doe, Anonymous Roe, Anonymous Company (Carner, Graham) (Entered: 08/20/2015) |
| 08/20/2015 | 7 | SUMMONS Returned Executed by Anonymous Doe, Anonymous Roe, Anonymous Company Delbert Hosemann served on 8/20/2015, answer due 9/10/2015. (Carner, Graham) (Entered: 08/20/2015) |
| 08/20/2015 | 6 | SUMMONS Returned Executed by Anonymous Doe, Anonymous Roe, Anonymous Company James Hood served on 8/20/2015, answer due 9/10/2015. (Carner, Graham) (Entered: 08/20/2015) |
| 08/20/2015 | 5 | **ERROR**DISREGARD THIS ENTRY** SUMMONS Returned Executed by Anonymous Doe, Anonymous Roe, Anonymous Company Phil Bryant served on 8/20/2015, answer due 9/10/2015. (Carner, Graham) (Entered: 08/20/2015) |
| 08/20/2015 | | Set Hearing as to 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order - MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Motion Hearing set for 8/21/2015 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 5B (Jackson) before District Judge Carlton W. Reeves. (JS) (Entered: 08/20/2015) |
| 08/20/2015 | 4 | Summons Issued as to Phil Bryant, James Hood, Delbert Hosemann. (RRL) (Entered: 08/20/2015) |
| 08/20/2015 | 3 | MEMORANDUM in Support re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Anonymous Company, Anonymous Doe, Anonymous Roe. (RRL) (Entered: 08/20/2015) |
| 08/20/2015 | 2 | MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order or, in the alternative, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Anonymous Company, Anonymous Doe, Anonymous Roe. (RRL) (Entered: 08/20/2015) |
| 08/20/2015 | 1 | COMPLAINT against Phil Bryant, James Hood, Delbert Hosemann ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 34643034914), filed by Anonymous Doe, Anonymous Roe, Anonymous Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Mailer, # 2 Exhibit B-Press Release, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet)(RRL) (Entered: 08/20/2015) |
| Anonymous Doe | represented by | Graham P. Carner
GRAHAM P. CARNER, PLLC
771 North Congress Street
Jackson, MS 39202
601/949-9456
Fax: 601/354-7854
Email: graham.carner at gmail.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Matthew Eichelberger
EICHELBERGER LAW FIRM, PLLC
775 North Congress Street
Jackson, MS 39202
601/292-7940
Fax: 601/510-9103
Email: matt at ike-law.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harold Edward Pizzetta , III
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
P.O. Box 220
550 High Street (39201)
Jackson, MS 39205-0220
601/359-3680
Email: hpizz@ago.state.ms.us
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
Thursday, September 10, 2015
Wednesday, September 09, 2015
Sunday, September 06, 2015
Saturday, September 05, 2015
Thursday, September 03, 2015
Wednesday, September 02, 2015
http://www.loweringthebar.net/2015/08/gerrymanderers-miss-one-person.html
when one vote matters.
i used to live near there and worked at a couple of the affected businesses.
Sunday, August 30, 2015
30
# posted by gt @ 11:45 AM
Saturday, August 29, 2015
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/alabama-voter-id_55ddcda1e4b04ae497052873
Alabama Risks Making It Much Harder To Get Required Voter ID
Proposed budget cuts could force 45 of 49 driver's license offices to close.
update this post picked up by hasen http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75698
Docket page for Anonymous Doe v Bryant, plus whatever else I turn up about this case.
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/mississippi/mssdce/3:2015cv00609/89992
http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2015/08/21/anonymous-jim-hood-delbert-hosemann/32112405/
A federal judge in Jackson did not rule Friday on a request to keep hidden the origin of a political mailer that depicted the Madison mayor manipulating Madison County supervisor candidates with puppet strings.
Judge Carlton Reeves took the matter under advisement after a 90-minute hearing. He indicated it could be a couple weeks before he rules after attorneys further brief the matter.
http://yallpolitics.com/index.php/yp/post/anonymous_files_lawsuit_against_bryant_hosemann_and_hood_over_campaign/
http://yallpolitics.com/index.php/yp/post/41791/
http://www.wtok.com/home/headlines/Hosemann-Calls-for-Investigation-of-Campaign-Mailers-319500411.html
Attorney General Jim Hood's office says it will investigate. Hosemann says violations are misdemeanors, punishable by fines of up to $3,000 and up to 6 months in jail.
Most literature presented by Hosemann criticizes incumbent Republican lawmakers, claiming they oppose gun rights and the current state flag, while supporting Common Core education standards and federal health care reform.
So there are some clues here about who the Does might be.
http://yallpolitics.com/index.php/yp/post/41781/
Publius and the Petition: Doe v. Reed and the
History of Anonymous Speech
Meredith Hattendorf, Comment, Theoretical Splits and Consistent Results on Anonymous Political Speech: Majors v. Abell and ACLU of Nevada v. Heller, 50 ST. LOUIS U. L.J. 925, 930 (2006)
I'm going to have to find this!
