Raw Story published this article on March 30. It alleges that Caroline Hunter, who is a Federal Election Commissioner in her first term, acted unethically in 2004 by providing misleading testimony to a federal court in New Jersey.

In 1987 the Republican National Committee had signed a consent decree, promising not to “engage in, nor assist or participate in any ballot security programs” that had not been pre-cleared by the judge in that 1987 case. That case had been filed in New Jersey because it concerned Republican attempts to challenge voters in Newark, New Jersey. A “ballot security program” means a mass mailing by the Republican Party to registered voters in a certain area, designed to develop a list of voters to challenge on election day at the polls. The party would challenge a voter if the postal mail sent by the party to that voter had been returned by the post office.

In 2004, the Democratic Party believed that the Republican National Committee was again helping a ballot security program, this time in Ohio. The Democratic Party sued the Republican National Committee, alleging that the RNC was violating the 1987 consent decree. The case returned to the federal court in New Jersey. Caroline Hunter, who was then an attorney for the RNC, filed an affidavit saying “The RNC is not initiating, controlling, or funding any programs of voter challenges, including the effort by the Ohio Republican Party to challenge voter registrations in Ohio.” However, in the 2004 case, the court ruled that the RNC was participating in the Ohio challenge. This story is only news now because Raw Story and writer Brad Jacobson noticed that Caroline Hunter seems to have provided a misleading affidavit in the 2004 court case, which is news because she is now one of the six Federal Election Commissioners.

On March 29, the Hawaii Senate passed HB 2397 on second reading. The bill will get a third reading vote on March 31. Assuming it passes that as well, it must return to the House, because the Senate had amended it to provide that it take effect in 2011, not 2010.

According to this news story, Ohio’s Secretary of State has promulgated a directive that requires voters who are voting in a different party’s primary this year, relative to 2008, to sign pledges of support for the party whose primary ballot that are requesting.

Ohio does not ask voters to choose a party, when they fill out a voter registration form. One would think that a state that does not have registration by party would be more relaxed about which party’s primary ballot a primary voter chooses.

Some years ago, a Democratic candidate for state court judge in Ohio sued, because she said elections officials were letting people who had voted in the Republican primary in the past choose a Democratic primary ballot currently. But, she lost. The Ohio courts said elections officials have no duty to try to stop voters from choosing a different party’s primary ballot. The Secretary of State’s directive can properly be criticized as changing the rules just before the upcoming May 2010 primary. Thanks to ThirdPartyDaily for the link.