July 2010 - Posts

Fox News: DOJ Accused of Stalling on Military Voting Bill
Wed, Jul 28 2010 1:56 PM

Fox News has an exclusive story on how the Department of Justice is accused of stalling on a bill designed to allow members of the armed services better access to being able to vote.

The Department of Justice is ignoring a new law aimed at protecting the right of American soldiers to vote, according to two former DOJ attorneys who say states are being encouraged to use waivers to bypass the new federal Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act.

The MOVE Act, enacted last October, ensures that servicemen and women serving overseas have ample time to get in their absentee ballots. The result of the DOJ's alleged inaction in enforcing the act, say Eric Eversole and J. Christian Adams — both former litigation attorneys for the DOJ's Voting Section — could be that thousands of soldiers' ballots will arrive too late to be counted.

RNLA Members R. Christian Adams and Eric Eversole have both been leading the fight to ensure that military voters are given the opportunity to ensure that their votes are properly cast and that they have the opportunity to have their votes counted. They also have at least one Senator on their side who is calling DOJ to task for the stalling on the implementation of this law.

Sen. John Cornyn,R-Texas – who co-sponsored MOVE – wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on July 26 saying he is concerned that the Department of Justice is allowing states to opt out of the new law. Click here to read the letter.

"Military voters have been disenfranchised for decades, and last year Congress acted," Cornyn said in a statement to FoxNews.com. "But according to recent information, the Department of Justice has expressed reluctance to protect the civil rights of military voters under the new law. All our men and women in uniform deserve a chance to vote this November, and the Obama administration bears responsibility for ensuring that they have it.

"For far too long in this country, we have failed to adequately protect the right of our troops and their families to participate in our democratic process. The MOVE Act was supposed to end this sad history. The right to participate in democratic elections is fundamental to the American experience."

This is an important issue and we should give those who put their lives on the line for our safety the ability to have their voices heard and be able to participate in the Democrtic process. It's the least that we can do.

 

Share |
DISCLOSE Act Slated for Senate Consideration TOMORROW
Mon, Jul 26 2010 10:14 AM

After rewriting the Senate version of the DISCLOSE Act, Senator Schumer began the Rule 14 process – a maneuver used to bypass action by the Rules and Administration Committee, which has jurisdiction over the bill – to get the new version on the Senate calendar and force a vote before Congress recesses in August. The DISCLOSE Act has now been slated for a cloture vote on Tuesday. National Journal reported this recent move "appears calculated more to score political points than to actually enact legislation." Despite the new tweaks in the bill, it seems "opponents appear unmoved by Schumer's recent changes. If anything, they may win some new allies." So what changes were actually made to the bill? National Journal explained:

Schumer's rewrite of the bill sets out in part to blunt the argument that it favors labor unions. For example, the bill requires groups to report all transfers of $50,000 to and from affiliates, but a House-added provision had exempted dues from that disclosure rule. Schumer's new version of DISCLOSE strips out that exemption, meaning groups must report large dues transfers as well.

"That is sort of an entreaty to moderate Republicans who are still considering the bill," said one Democratic Senate aide. The Schumer rewrite also tweaks the disclaimer requirements to eat up less time from ads, and nixes an anti-BP amendment by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, that would have banned political activity by groups with Outer Continental Shelf drilling leases.

Schumer also added a measure -- long sought by reform advocates -- that would require senators to file quarterly campaign finance reports electronically, instead of on paper. This was inserted "in the interests of more clear disclosure, more sunlight," the Senate aide said.

The changes are an attempt "to make even more clear that the legislation is not intended to advantage one type of outside group over another," said Lisa Gilbert, democracy advocate for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

If this bill passes, the effect of deterring political speech will be felt immediately. The Heritage Foundation pointed out:

[The DISCLOSE Act] will become effective within thirty days, which will cause such confusion and chaos only two months before the fall congressional elections that many corporations, both profit and nonprofit, and incorporated associations, will no doubt stay out of the election and stay out of grassroots activity on other bills and issues being considered by Congress before November. But then, there is little doubt that deterring such activity that could lead to criticism of the positions and votes taken by incumbent senators and representatives is an intentional objective.

Share |
Schumer Introduces New Version of DISCLOSE Act
Thu, Jul 22 2010 2:22 PM

After Democrats in the Senate apparently struggled to get the votes to pass the DISCLOSE Act, they have launched a new strategy to pass the legislation, which aims to reverse the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United. Last night, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) introduced a new version of the DISCLOSE Act. The new bill could come to the floor of the Senate as early as next week. The new version of DISCLOSE, S. 3628, appears to contain a new set of "findings" and other tweaks of the House-passed version of the DISCLOSE Act, H.R. 5175.

RNLA member and former Federal Election Commission (FEC) Chairman, Bradley A. Smith, said of Schumer's new version: "The cosmetic surgery Sen. Schumer has performed on the DISCLOSE Act has it looking just as ugly. It contains the same backroom deals for labor unions and large interests such as the National Rifle Association. Senators should filibuster this modern day Sedition Act."

Read more from the Center for Competitive Politics here, including a 19-page, section-by-section analysis of the House version of the DISCLOSE Act, as well as a two-page backgrounder. Stay tuned to the RNLA Blog for more updates on the Democrats latest attempt to quash political speech.

Share |
Maryland Becomes Second State to Regulate Campaign Activity on Social Media Sites
Thu, Jul 22 2010 12:33 PM

The Baltimore Sun reports that on Tuesday, the Maryland General Assembly's Joint Committee on Administrative, Executive & Legislative Review approved, by an 11-1 vote, to regulate "how much information candidates must include on social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter." More from the Sun on the rule that goes into effect in less than two weeks:

Candidates must begin including an authority line -- a declaration of approval that lists their campaign treasurer -- on their official campaign pages on Twitter, Facebook and other social networking sites that have exploded in popularity this election season.

The rules do not mean that each 140-character "tweet" has to contain that detailed infomation. Rather, it has to be on the "landing page" that corrals all of the tweets for a specific candidate.

Both major gubernatorial contenders, Gov. Martin O'Malley and former Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., are already including authority lines. Check out the bio section and of their Twitter pages to see what all candidates must now begin doing.

"This is very new," said Jared DeMarinis, director of the division of candidacy and campaign finance for the State Board of Elections, which crafted the regulations. "We're taking the rules as they are today and applying them to Internet."

Social networking companies have lauded the state for being at the forefront of the issue. Company representatives for Google, AOL, Yahoo and Facebook were in Annapolis this morning to testify in favor of the regulations.

Only Florida has specifically regulated how candidates can use social media sites, the company representatives said, and lawmakers there did so only after a lawsuit.

M[a]ryland's new rules also provide clarity on what a candidate must do if he or she wants to purchase an online ad with Facebook or Google or another provider. If the ad is too small to include the full authority line -- which it often is -- candidates will need to include a link to their official campaign site.

The committee voted on the new regulations following a unanimous vote by the state elections board on June 3. For additional information on these regulations, please click here.

Share |
State Campaign Finance Laws Under Attack
Tue, Jul 20 2010 10:31 AM

In recent weeks, there have been a number of developments related to legal battles over state campaign finance laws, most notably in Arizona, Connecticut and Florida. In particular, parties have been looking to overturn state laws that provide matching funds when one candidate exceeds a certain spending threshold. These laws are designed, at least in part, to allow a candidate who is going up against a prolific fundraiser or self-financed candidate to enter into the state's public financing system and receive public funding that will help level the playing field. 

In 2008, Arizona's Goldwater Institute challenged the constitutionality of that state's matching funds statute. (Click here for more background.) In McComish v. Bennett, a federal district court judge agreed with the plaintiffs that the matching funds provision violates the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit then reversed (surprise, surprise). Then, things get a bit confusing. To simplify, plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, which then stayed the Ninth Circuit decision, meaning Arizona's public financing system, as it relates to matching funds, is temporarily out of commission. Many have said that the Court's stay means the High Court will likely take up the case next term.

Just last week, another significant decision came down, this time relating to Connecticut's public financing system. The law firm Bracewell & Giuliani released an update that summarizes the background and decision nicely:

In Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield (09-3760-cv) ("Green Party I"), the court found unconstitutional the "trigger provisions" in the Citizen's Election Program ("CEP") section of Connecticut's Campaign Finance Reform Act ("CEFRA"), which automatically provide additional funds to candidates who participate in the state's public funds program when the expenditures of privately-funded opponents or independent third parties exceed a certain threshold. [Footnote omitted.] Alternatively, the court ruled that CEP's qualification criteria and distribution formulae, which determine what candidates qualify to receive matching funds and in what amounts, were not unconstitutional as they did not discriminate against minor party candidates.

CEFRA was first enacted in 2006 in response to various corruption scandals involving Connecticut politicians. The Second Circuit acknowledged that, pursuant to the seminal Supreme Court case of Buckley v. Valeo, the public financing of candidates is constitutional. However, the court sided with the plaintiffs, which included the Green Party of Connecticut and the Libertarian Party of Connecticut, who argued that the trigger provisions were tantamount to unconstitutional penalties.

In reaching this conclusion, the court analogized the trigger provisions to the "Millionaire's Amendment" to the McCain-Feingold law at issue in Davis v. Federal Election Commission, 128 S. Ct. 2759 (2008). The Supreme Court found the Millionaire's Amendment a substantial burden on the exercise of free speech because it raised contribution limits only for publicly-financed candidates while imposing lower limits on candidates not participating in the program. Such a distinction, the Court explained, amounted to a penalty on self-financed candidates. 

Similarly, the Second Circuit, here, found that the trigger provisions would force non-participating candidates, who chose to exercise their First Amendment right to spend personal funds on the campaign, to "shoulder a special and potentially significant burden" as they were forced to spend more and more money while the public-financed candidate received more and more public funds.  This substantial burden, the court decided, was not justified by the state's interest in promoting participation in CEP, an interest the court found uncompelling. The court further suggested that, to the extent the provisions were intended to level the playing field, they were unconstitutional under Davis.

The Second Circuit's decision stands in stark contrast to the Ninth Circuit's ruling in McComish v. Bennett, decided a little over a month ago. There, faced with a similar provision in Arizona campaign finance law, the Ninth Circuit decided that it was constitutional to provide additional public funds to participating candidates who faced self-financed opponents that crossed the triggering threshold. Still, the Supreme Court has stayed implementation of the Arizona campaign finance law, and with similar trigger provisions currently before the courts in Wisconsin and Florida, the Court appears poised to take up the issue.

In addition, Bracewell & Giuliani's update points out that "Connecticut's trigger provisions are also strikingly similar to ones found in New York City's public finance plan," and that this decision "calls into question the constitutionality of these triggering events." I am guessing that Davis and these following decisions will begin to chip away at other states' matching fund laws as well.

The next target appears to be Florida's, where Rick Scott, a Republican candidate for Florida Governor, recently filed a federal lawsuit in the Northern District of Florida seeking a preliminary injunction challenging the Florida's matching funds system.  Scott is largely self-funding his campaign and has chosen not to participate in the public financing system, thereby leaving him without spending limits. The state law allows a candidate whose opponent is not participating in the financing system to receive public funding in the amount of the difference between the applicable cap on spending by the participating candidate and the amount of excess (to a limit). Scott is challenging that provision. Last week, a Federal District Court judge ruled against Scott's motion for a preliminary injunction that would have at least temporarily shut down the provision of matching funds until the case was settled. Scott is now appealing to Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Share |
J. Christian Adams: Why the Left Shouldn’t Defend the New Black Panther Dismissal
Mon, Jul 19 2010 9:11 AM

In response to several attacks he has received in response to his allegations against the Department of Justice, RNLA member and former DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams has criticized the left for "harming a cause they profess to support – the right to vote." Adams calls the dismissal of the New Black Panther case "a genuine tragedy that should concern those on the left."

In their reflexive personal attacks and amateurish legal arguments, they fail to see they are undermining their own long-term goals, namely vigorous enforcement of voter intimidation and civil rights laws. Perhaps it is not too late for the more reasonable among them to understand their approach to the New Black Panther dismissal is suicidal.

Adams points out that his "testimony has since been corroborated by at least four others with firsthand knowledge of the open hostility to race-neutral enforcement of the law inside the DOJ, and to the enforcement of the Section 8 of Motor Voter." Moreover, he mentions that it will further be corroborated by more witnesses, including former voting section chief Christopher Coates, who resigned for the same reasons and has thus far been prevented from testifying by his superiors at DOJ. Read Coates' resignation speech here.

Adams describes two strong reasons why those on the left who have been defending the dismissal of the New Black Panther case through personal attacks, should reconsider. First, he argues that the dismissal will hamper the success of future cases because it "creates an unwelcome and dangerous factual floor in defining future intimidation." Second, the dismissal undermines support for a broad civil rights agenda," which becomes increasingly more important as our country becomes more racially diverse. Read Adams' article in its entirety here.

Read more about the New Black Panther dismissal from an excerpt of the RNLA's recent Election Law Update:

RNLA Member J. Christian Adams Exposes Another Justice Department Scandal 

Former DOJ Attorney and RNLA Member J. Christian Adams has come forward with allegations that Justice Department officials under the Obama administration forced the dismissal of a "slam dunk" voter intimidation case regarding the New Black Panther party (NBPP) and its  activity in 2008 at a polling place in Philadelphia.  The case was filed under the Bush administration and the Court granted default judgment, meaning the case was won.  When the new administration came in, all that needed to be done was the entering of sanctions against the defendants. However, Adams, one of five attorneys on the trial team, revealed that before this could happen, political appointees ordered them to drop the charges against the NBPP.

The 1965 Voting Rights Act protects voters from intimidation at the polls.  In 2008, witnesses testified and captured on video the New Black Panthers standing outside of a polling place in Philadelphia tapping a nightstick, menacing, attempting to keep people away from the polls, and making comments such as, "You're about to be ruled by the black man, cracker," and calling voters "white devils."  In a Fox News interview, Megyn Kelly asked Adams:  "Is there any question in your mind that that violates the law?"  Adams replied without hesitation, "No, nor anybody who worked on the case.  It's the easiest case I ever had at the Justice Department.  It doesn't get any easier than this.  If this doesn't constitute voter intimidation, nothing will."

On May 18, Adams, a veteran lawyer in the Voting Section of the Justice Department, announced his resignation from DOJ.  In his resignation letter, Adams outlined his reasons for doing so and noted that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights had launched an investigation into the dismissal of the NBPP case and his testimony was subpoenaed, as well as another attorney on the trial team (who also resigned from DOJ as a result of the dismissal of the case), but that they had initially been ordered by their superiors at DOJ not to testify – a violation of federal law.

The Weekly Standard conducted their own investigation of the allegations, obtaining documents and conducting interviews with Justice personnel.  In a lengthy article, they noted:

From the onset, Justice has denied that any political appointees were involved in the decision to dismiss the case. This line was repeated in multiple letters to and face-to-face meetings with Republican representatives Frank Wolf and Lamar Smith and in statements to the media. We now know that this is incorrect. In interrogatory answers supplied to the civil rights commission, the department acknowledged that Attorney General Eric Holder was briefed on the decision to dismiss the case and that the number three man in Justice, Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli, was consulted as well. Katsas testified, "Certainly DoJ's decision to abandon all claims against the party, Malik Shabazz, and Mr. Jackson [the second polling place intimidator], despite their refusal to even defend the case, would have qualified as important enough for the leadership of the Civil Rights Division to raise with [Perrelli]." The same is true of the decision to seek only a narrow injunction against the billy club-wielding defendant. He notes that the filing of the case may have been routine, but the decision to dismiss it was so extraordinary that someone of Perrelli's rank must certainly have played an "active role."

The article concludes:

While the interference by political appointees in the NBPP case has been egregious, there is a critical issue with implications far beyond this single case: Whether the attorneys who populate the civil rights division of the Justice Department believe that civil rights laws exist only to protect minorities from discrimination and intimidation by whites.

This question may be dead on.  Adams further alleges that a political appointee in the Department of Justice issued a mandate that the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division would not be pursuing types of cases in which the defendant is African American and victim is Caucasian. 

Moreover, as The Wall Street Journal reported:

 [Adams] testified that last year Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes made a jaw-dropping announcement to attorneys in Justice's Voting Rights section. She said she would not support any enforcement of a key section of the federal "Motor Voter" law -- Section 8, which requires states to periodically purge their voter rolls of dead people, felons, illegal voters and those who have moved out of state.

 According to Mr. Adams, Justice lawyers were told by Ms. Fernandes: "We're not interested in those kind of cases. What do they have to do with helping increase minority access and turnout? We want to increase access to the ballot, not limit it."

One thing seems to have emerged quite clearly in recent months, "The more this story develops, the more it appears Justice is engaged in a massive cover-up of its politicization of voting rights cases."

The story of the Obama Justice Department's questionable handling of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case of 2008 continues to gain momentum as the true story begins to surface.  Watch voters' reaction to the case at a Town Hall Meeting here.  Read what Hans von Spakovsky, an RNLA member and former FEC Commissioner, had to say about the case in National Review here.  Keep up to date with this story as it develops by checking out J. Christian Adams' new blog here.  Please also see the "Oversight" page of Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), Ranking Member on the House Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Subcommittee, for updates on his effort to persuade Democrats in Congress to address the NBPP cover-up. 

Share |
Study: Illegal Felon Voters Sent Franken to the U.S. Senate
Mon, Jul 12 2010 3:53 PM

A new study confirms what many have suspected since the 2008 elections: Illegal voting practices may be responsible for Al Franken's election as Senator of Minnesota. The study by Minnesota Majority, a conservative watchdog, provides evidence that the election, in which Franken beat out then-incumbent Senator Norm Coleman, shows the election may have been decided by at least 341 convicted felons who voted illegally in the heavily Democratic Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

According to Fox News:

The final recount vote in the race, determined six months after Election Day, showed Franken beat Coleman by 312 votes -- fewer votes than the number of felons whose illegal ballots were counted, according to Minnesota Majority's newly released study, which matched publicly available conviction lists with voting records. 

Furthermore, the report charges that efforts to get state and federal authorities to act on its findings have been "stonewalled."…

The report said that in Hennepin County, which in includes Minneapolis, 899 suspected felons had been matched on the county's voting records, and the review showed 289 voters were conclusively matched to felon records. The report says only three people in the county have been charged with voter fraud so far. 

Learn more from Minnesota Majority here and read the full study report here.

Share |
Hatch to Vote "No" on Kagan
Fri, Jul 2 2010 12:22 PM

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) announced today his intention to vote against Elena Kagan’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Hatch, former Chairman and current member of the Judiciary Committee, released a statement asserting he had actively participated in the hearings and took great care in examining her record and considering views of both her opponents and supporters.  Hatch came to the conclusion that “[t]he law must control the judge; the judge must not control the law….[B]ased on evidence rather than blind faith, General Kagan regrettably does not meet this standard and that, therefore, I cannot support her appointment.” 

Hatch cited Kagan’s lack of judicial and legal experience, as well as her endorsement of an activist judicial philosophy and “disturbing situations in which it appears that her personal or political views drove her legal views,” among his reasons for not backing her nomination:

 

Supreme Court Justices who, like General Kagan, had no prior judicial experience did have an average of 21 years in private legal practice. General Kagan has two. The fact that her experience is instead academic and political only magnifies my emphasis on judicial philosophy as the most important qualification for judicial service.

Over nearly 25 years, General Kagan has endorsed, and praised those who endorse, an activist judicial philosophy. I was surprised when she encouraged us at the hearing simply to discard or ignore certain parts of her record. I am unable to do that. I also cannot ignore disturbing situations in which it appears that her personal or political views drove her legal views. She promoted the Clinton administration’s extreme position on abortion, including the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion.  As Dean of Harvard Law School, she blocked the access by military recruiters that federal law requires. And she took legal positions on important issues such as freedom of speech that could undermine the liberties of all Americans.

Read the full release here.

 

Share |