See this opportunity to obtain an honorary degree from the electoral college. Thanks to Electionupdates.
Reply
On December 18, a lengthy hearing was held in Texas state court in the case Texas Reform Party v Reform Party of the USA, Dallas County district court, 07-9217. This case had been filed in September 2007 by the Charles Foster faction of the national Reform Party, and that faction had earlier won an injunction, prohibiting the Rodney Martin faction from holding itself out as the true national Reform Party. After the December 18 hearing, the judge dissolved that injunction.
The case is still alive, and is set for a trial in August 2008.
On December 18, a U.S. District Court in Tallahassee enjoined enforcement of a two-year old Florida law concerning new voter registration forms. The law says that when someone registers to vote, he or she must provide a Florida drivers license number, a state ID number, or the last 4 digits of a Social Security Number.
When elections officials receive the voter registration application, they match the ID data with the state or federal databank. If the ID data doesn’t match the voter’s name, the voter registration form is rejected.
The court ruled that the Florida law (which indisputably has resulted in approximately 14,000 individuals remaining unregistered) probably conflicts with the “Help America Vote Act” passed by Congress in 2002. The Court also ruled that the Florida law probably conflicts with the “materiality” portion of the Voting Rights Act. Finally, the Court found that there is a fair chance that the Florida law conflicts with the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, while the case proceeds, the state may not enforce the law. Florida State Conference of the NAACP v Browning, no. 4:07-cv-402-SPM. The decision can be read here. Judge Stephen P. Mickle, who issued the order, is a Clinton appointee.
The “materiality” part of the Voting Rights Act says “no person shall be denied the right to vote because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election.” The “materiality” part of the Voting Rights Act logically applies to checking signatures on petitions for candidates to get on the ballot, and has long been ignored.
The lawsuit filed last month by a Florida Democrat, alleging that the date of the presidential primary is unconstitutional (because it indirectly disenfranchises Florida Democrats from having national convention delegates) will be expedited. The case, Ausman v Browning, 4:07-cv519, is in U.S. District Court in Tallahassee before Judge Robert Hinkle.
A scheduling hearing is set for December 19. The case is novel and very interesting. The plaintiff depends on the fact that Judge Hinkle has already ruled that the national Democratic Party has a right to deprive Florida Democrats of any national convention delegates, because Florida Democrats are choosing delegates too early. Therefore, the lawsuit argues, the state is to blame for this disenfranchisement, because it is state law that set the primary in January. Therefore, the lawsuit argues, the state should be compelled to hold the Democratic primary in February, when it would not violate national party rules.
Of course, the rebuttal to this is that the state Democratic Party is free to set up February caucuses to choose delegates. But, the plaintiff argues, Florida major parties have never set up caucuses before, and there was no time to organize them.
The New Jersey State Senate has put over the vote on the National Popular Vote Plan bill until December 20 or December 21. The legislative Black Caucus wants to meet with the bill’s proponents first.