The Minnesota Independence Party, which has been ballot-qualified since the 1994 election, had scheduled a state convention for December 1, 2007. At that convention, the state party was to decide whether to join with the New York Independence Party, to form a nucleus for a national Independence Party. However, the state convention was postponed indefinitely due to adverse weather conditions in Minnesota, which made travel difficult.
On November 30, the Virginia Republican State Central Committee voted not to require an oath for voters who vote in the party’s presidential primary next year. The November 30 decision reverses a decision that had been made a week earlier. The oath would have required presidential primary voters to say they intend to vote for the Republican nominee in November 2008. It would not have been enforceable since voters vote in secret.
On December 1, the Democratic National Committee stripped Michigan of all its delegates to the August 2008 national convention in Denver. The move had been expected, since Michigan will select delegates at a January 15 primary. National Democratic rules forbid any state except Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina from choosing delegates before February.
Michigan Democrats are now in the same position as Florida Democrats, who also have no delegates. The national committee vote was not unanimous, but it was a voice vote, so there is no tally.
On December 1, the Democratic National Committee stripped Michigan of all its delegates to the August 2008 national convention in Denver. The move had been expected, since Michigan will select delegates at a January 15 primary. National Democratic rules forbid any state except Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina from choosing delegates before February.
Michigan Democrats are now in the same position as Florida Democrats, who also have no delegates. The national committee vote was not unanimous, but it was a voice vote, so there is no tally.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the Indiana case on whether voters at the polls must show government photo-ID on January 9. The two defendants are the Secretary of State of Indiana (Todd Rokita, a Republican) and the Marion County Election Board. Marion County is co-terminous with the city of Indianapolis, and is Indiana’s most populous county.
The Secretary of State’s brief has not yet been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. However, Marion County just filed its brief. In substance, the Marion County brief sides with the plaintiffs! This is very unusual. However, it should be noted that the Marion County Election Board consists of 2 Democrats and 1 Republican.
Technically, the Marion County brief is neutral. It says on page one, “The Election Board takes no position on the constitutionality of the Voter Identification Statute.” A footnote explains that under Indiana law, the election board is not permitted to argue that a state law is unconstitutional.
However, the substance of the brief is entirely on the side of the voters who challenged the state law. The Marion County brief says that voter ID is not needed at the polls because polling place officials are frequently people who have lived in that neighborhood for decades and who tend to know their neighbors. The brief also says that parties are permitted to have challengers present. The brief also notes that the law requires the voter to sign the precinct register, and the register already has a copy of that voter’s signature (from the voter’s registration form).
The brief also says that impersonating a voter is a felony. Also, the brief says that the voter ID law has prevented certain qualified individuals from voting. And, the brief says that no one has been known to impersonate a voter at the polls, ever, in Marion County. The brief criticizes the 2-1 decision of the 7th circuit, a decision which had upheld the law. The brief’s last sentence is, “Because Indiana’s Voter ID law has deprived some otherwise-qualified persons from exercizing their right to vote, and because there has been no showing of in-person voter impersonation fraud, this Court should apply close scrutiny to the statute.”
Thanks to Rick Hasen’s election law blog for this news. That blog has a link to the brief. See http://electionlawblog.org.
