Skepticseye.com

Apparently they hire media people now.

and I said what I meant. An elephant’s faithful, one-hundred percent.

However, you wouldn’t know all I meant, or said, by reading the Politico. The Politico called to see whether I would comment on an anti-voter caging proposal now before Congress. I obliged, and made the following points:

- if a state permits challenges to voters, than it makes little sense to deny challengers the ability to do research on whom to challenge (that is, caging mail returns to review who may have moved from the precinct);

- opponents of caging are really opposed to partisan challengers in polling places at all, and one wonders why that isn’t the focus of reform;

- perhaps that reticence has something to do with a subconscious realization that partisan challengers, some places, perform a valuable function, and we might not want a federal law banning them. They are, in one-party jurisdictions, perhaps the only monitors around not allied with incumbents and the majority party. This is where the machine comment came in - that historically challengers protect abuse of voters by “historically Democratic” machines. I think I then allowed that the Platt machine wasn’t Democratic.

My point was that, with all we hear about abuses involving partisan challengers in polling places, we shouldn’t lose sight of their intended purpose - and the purpose they may continue to serve. Sometimes you don’t know what you’ve got ’til its gone.

- finally, the reporter related some accounts of partisan poll workers abusing voters, confronting them, and whatnot. I observed that many jurisdictions do not permit challengers to address voters directly, so this would violate state rules (maybe federal law, too, depending). If the rules aren’t being followed, how is adding a “caging” law to the mix going to help, I queried.

The reporter who wrote the story had a word limit, and was entitled to use the quote he did. But that squib shouldn’t be taken as a complete summary of my views. I think some good friends know that . . .

I’m quoted in this story about voter caging and young voters.  That hasn’t really been the focus of the debate, but apparently this writer’s focus is usually on “youth” issues, which accounts for the direction of the article.

The Court had fun thinking about the scope of “preclearance” yesterday.  As a refresher, under the Voting Rights Act, jurisdictions that used certain restrictive practices, and had a minority of the voting age population registered to vote, were required to have any of their changes in voting practices “precleared” by the Department of Justice, (or sanctioned by a judge).  The scope of this requirement has been interpreted broadly, to cover not just laws regulating voter qualifications, but redistricting and other more attenuated regulations of elections.

This case involved whether the Governor could appoint a replacement on a county commission, or whether a special election must be held.  The special election had been precleared — a return to the appointment process had not, even though state law provided for appointments.

Governor Riley sees politics at work:

“The plaintiffs’ problem with my appointment of Commissioner Chastang has nothing to do with race.  They simply wanted a different African American on the Mobile County Commission,” said Governor Riley.  “The plaintiffs want to take a federal civil rights statute aimed at preventing racial discrimination in voting practices and use it instead to further a partisan political agenda.  I hope the Supreme Court will stop this effort to pervert the aims of the Voting Rights Act.“

Imagine using voting rights law for political ends.  Is nothing sacred?

It’s been a long winter back here, but this audio from the wonderous Dayvid Figlar reminded me that some things are even more irritating than 3-month wet red clay sticking to your shoes.  Namely, relentless wind and plastic-bag trees.

The campaign logo alone is worth it.

BetFair’s latest predictive market chart, for your edification:

As one would expect, Candidate McCain has not felt bound by the primary spending limits. The conventional wisdom seems to be that, since the FEC lacks a quorum, nothing will be done until it can meet and muster four votes for something.

Yet recall that the DNC filed a complaint with the FEC in February about this very issue. Naturally, a quorum-less FEC can’t act on that either. But, after 120 days the DNC then has the right to file a petition in DC District Court. So, in late June (or thereafter) the DNC can petition the court, and the court can find that the failure of the FEC to act is “contrary to law” and direct the FEC to act in conformity with the court’s application of the law. McCain could then appeal this order, and so forth. Note that this could occur before the convention, which is still within the “primary” season.

Or maybe the DNC would prefer to make this lawsuit part of the media coverage of the Republican convention. The statute requires that a petition from an FEC dismissal be filed within 60 days of the dismissal, but sets no time limit for petitions based on a failure of the FEC to act.

I know failure to act petitions have been filed lots in the past, and are almost always unsuccessful. This is because the FEC (in ordinary times) acts internally on complaints quite promptly, even if the entire enforcement process seems to take forever. But here, there is no question about the FEC’s ability to “act” -  without a quorum, the FEC can’t act at all. Could the FEC lawyers argue that internal administrative machinations that require no FEC Commission vote (tally or otherwise) is administrative “action.”? Hmm. I can see a judge taking notice of the lack of quorum, deciding that this is intolerable, and taking the reins here.

And maybe in other matters too. If judges can run school districts why can’t they run the FEC?

My Engage article about Voter ID laws and the Crawford challenge is now on line!

It’s here!  It’s pretty!  And its Iranian!  Operating as “Atlantic Television News” out of a studio on K street, its producers attract fine US guests to talk about our troubled country.  Like the photogenic Michael McDonald, discussing whether American has a free press. Or yours truly, commenting on what the Eliot Spitzer scandal says about American politics (not posted yet).

ATN isn’t really all that clear about the whole Iran thing, actually.  And their staff is friendly and professional, with a number of Americans wandering around.

So what should one do when asked to appear?  I’ve decided it is better to go, and speak well of my country, then stay away and have them use a guest who may not care what impression they make.