The Republican Lawyer Blog : election law

AG Holder takes Florida to Court . . . and Loses

Michael Collins — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:17:00 GMT

Last week, a federal judge sided with the state of Florida, and denied Attorney General Eric Holder’s attempt to obtain a temporary restraining order against the state’s removal of noncitizens from its voting rolls.

As chronicled by the RNLA blog, Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) and Secretary of State Ken Detzner (R) announced an effort to review the state’s voter rolls and remove ineligible voters. But Attorney General Eric Holder sent letters to the state challenging this process, with the Department of Justice ultimately suing the state of Florida.

At oral argument, Justice Department lawyer John Bert Russ requested that the rights of every voter purged from the rolls be restored, but this request was “flatly rejected.” “Leaving ineligible voters on the list is not a solution. Noncitizens should not be voting,” said U.S. District Court Judge Robert Hinkle, a Clinton appointee. “People need to know we are running an honest election.”

Then, DOJ argued that Florida’s actions violated the NVRA, or Motor-Voter law, which prohibits states from systematically removing ineligible voters less than 90 days before an election. But in an order denying the federal government’s motion, Judge Hinkle ruled that the state’s actions did not violate federal law.

Reviewing the statutory text of the NVRA, Judge Hinkle concluded that “none” of it “applies to removing noncitizens who are not properly registered in the first place.” To this point, Hinkle wrote, “the NVRA does not require a state to allow a noncitizen to vote just because the state did not catch the error more than 90 days in advance.”

Following this legal victory, the state of Florida is now suing the federal government to obtain access to a United States Department of Homeland Security database “to better ascertain the citizenship status of voters.” To date, the federal government has refused Florida’s requests to access this information.

“If we get the (federal) data, I do expect the state to proceed and protect the integrity of the voter rolls,” said Michael Carvin, attorney for Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner.

Non-Citizens Voting in Florida: Changing “the Whole Complexion of an Election”

James Uthmeier — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:17:00 GMT

Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE

Almost one hundred non-citizen registered voters were exposed in Florida last week, a stark reality of the growing need for states to increase efforts to combat vote fraud. NBC2, a south Florida news station, reported the discovery less than a week after the Florida primary. Lee County Supervisor of Elections Sharon Harrington said that non-citizen voters “could change the whole complexion of an election.”

NBC2’s Andy Pierotti found ninety-four non-citizen registered voters upon investigating their jury recusal forms. After learning that Hinako Dennett, a Cape Coral Resident, told the Clerk of Court she could not participate in jury duty because she was not a United States citizen, Mr. Pierotti uncovered that she was registered to vote. When questioned, Dennett claimed, “I vote every year.”

Yvonne Wigglesworth, another non-citizen, told reporters she did not know how she even became registered to vote. However, she voted in elections six times over the last eleven years. Like Wigglesworth, other non-citizens explained they have not registered to vote as citizens, yet their registration forms somehow indicate otherwise.

The discovery of non-citizen registered voters came only two days after the Tampa Bay Times posted an editorial that claimed vote fraud “is a nonexistent problem in this state.” Misguided opponents of the Florida legislature’s recent efforts to improve election law have downplayed the existence of fraudulent voting practices in the state. Ann McFall, Volusia County Supervisor of Elections, incorrectly described vote fraud in Florida to be “a misnomer.”

Evidence of widespread registration errors in two of Florida’s largest counties, Lee and Collier, confirmed the need for states to clean their voter rolls. Tighter measures are clearly needed to promote open, honest, and fair elections in Florida.

Following NBC2’s investigation, the election offices at Lee and Collier counties have committed to requesting copies of all jury excusal forms submitted by individuals claiming to be non-citizens, and letters seeking proof of citizenship are being sent to each of these identified individuals. Although this is a step in the right direction, the Department of Justice needs to play a role in making sure states clean their voter rolls, something that is required under Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act. The Obama-controlled DOJ, however, has made it clear it would not enforce Section 8.

Liberals Try But Fail to Criticize Florida Anti-Fraud Election Laws

James Uthmeier — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 14:02:00 GMT

Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE

Last Friday, liberals unfairly condemned a Florida law that will prevent vote fraud. On January 27, mere days before the Florida primary, Democrat Senators Bill Nelson and Dick Durbin held a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in Tampa, Florida.

The hearing, titled “New State Voting Laws II: Protecting the Right to Vote in the Sunshine State,” was in response to Florida House Bill 1355, which was signed into law last year. At the hearing several witnesses spoke out against the new voting laws, arguing that the measures are anti-democratic and discriminate against minorities. However, these opinions are without merit. Florida’s new election laws intend to combat voter fraud in a nondiscriminatory fashion, despite witnesses’ testimony to the contrary.

HB 1355 changed the schedule of early voting days. Although the number of early voting days was decreased, the total time to vote early will not necessarily decrease. Most early voting locations will now be open twelve hours a day, rather than the previous six.

The revised voting period was implemented to compress the early voting period in order to prevent “mischief and mishap,” which the RNLA previously discussed here.

Daryl Parks, President of the National Bar Association, testified at the hearing about how “data demonstrates that black voters disproportionately voted more during weekend hours than during weekday hours.” Parks said that not having early voting the Sunday before the election will have a “tremendous impact upon historically disenfranchised voters, such as African Americans and Hispanics.” He supported this theory by contending “places of worship have, historically, rallied their members to travel from their churches to their voting sites.” However, groups may still organize voting trips on Saturdays, and there is still a Sunday that falls within the current early voting period.

Early voting, after all, is not required of states. Michael Ertel, the Supervisor of Elections for Seminole County, expressed to the committee that when it comes to early voting, “Florida is one of the most active states in the nation.” According to Mr. Ertel, Florida is one of only twelve states that even offer statewide early voting on weekends. Additionally, early voting is not even allowed in several states. Nevertheless, Democrat senators find having only an eight-day voting period before the election to be unconstitutional. (Senator Leahy even claimed that Florida’s laws “run contrary to our Constitution’s text and history.”)

Opponents are also against requirements placed on third-party voter registration organizations. Brent Wilkes, National Executive Director of The League of United Latin American Citizens, claimed that the law would prevent minorities from registering to vote “by requiring third-party voter registration organizations to submit voter registration applications within 48 hours of receipt instead of 10 days as provided by existing law…”

Get-out-the-vote organizations are also required to register with the state and submit names of all workers signing up voters, and fines are in place to deter people from engaging in duplicate, fraudulent, or dishonest registration practices. However, the League of Women Voters, which claims to be a non-partisan organization focused on “encouraging informed and active participation in government,” has abandoned this mission and is taking a partisan stance against the bill.

Deirdre Macnab, President of the League of Women Voters, told the Gulf Breeze News that she believes the bill’s restraints on third-party organizations will “make it more difficult for voters to participate in our democracy […],” and announced that the organization was going to cease registration efforts in Florida. However, Supervisor of Elections Michael Ertel contacted the organization before the bill was even passed and offered to have someone from his office attend every registration drive and collect registration forms directly from voters in an effort to accommodate the organization. The League of Women Voters never responded. Are they really trying to reach voters? The organization does not appear to be truly committed to assisting voters with registration.

Mr. Ertel justified the new regulations as necessary for advancing open, fair and honest elections. “As elections administrators, we have the obligation to ensure opportunity,” said Ertel. “As voters, we have the obligation to ensure that we take this most precious gift from our constitution and use it responsibly.”

Floridians can be confident that their state is taking action to prevent vote fraud. Florida’s election reforms are designed to ensure efficiency and accuracy during the election process. These new voting laws do not take away anyone’s right to vote, but they do make certain that each vote truly counts… and is not diluted by vote fraud.

Florida Reforms Protect Elections "from Mishap and Mischief"

Maya Noronha — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:19:00 GMT

On Al Sharpton’s Politics Nation last month, Republican Florida State Rep. Dennis Baxley was interviewed regarding the Florida election law that he sponsored, which was passed by the state legislature and signed by Governor Rick Scott.

Baxley explained the reasoning for the change in election laws, by saying, “We have to have credible results in close elections. Only the legislature can protect the credibility of the process.” Thus, he sponsored a bill to protect elections “from mishap and mischief.”

Democrats have tried to engage opposition to the changes to Florida election laws in anticipation of the Florida primary. But 76 of the 80 parts of the election law changes have already been cleared by the Justice Department.

Among the changes to the election laws include: (1) a revised early voting schedule; (2) a requirement for third-party groups to register and subject them to fines for delaying turning in voter registration forms; and (3) the use of provisional ballots by voters who move from another county without updating their addresses.

With regard to the revised early voting schedule, Baxley said on Politics Nation that this was actually a change to the election laws that had bipartisan support. By having the early voting period all on one day instead of partial days, voters would not be turned away from the polls for arriving too late.

As for third party voting, Baxley explained the reason for the change by saying, “People who submit voter information to others, they have that manipulated. They don’t know what gets turned in and what doesn’t. This is a much more secure process.”

Finally, provisional ballots was a response to a concern about local elections being “polluted by anyone coming to other communities” and changing their residence the day of the election to vote for someone where they didn’t actually consider their home. Baxley pointed out that no one is actually turned away from the polls, because “Everyone gets to vote by provisional ballot if they don’t have their affairs in order.” On the whole, he said, “We are a very accessible system. It’s accessible to everyone in the same way.”

Baxley explained that he did not the public’s faith in the integrity of elections – especially close ones – to be at issue. This is a measure aimed at reducing fraud. He said, “Unless you are trying to intentionally violate the election laws, you don’t have a problem under this bill."

Former RNLA Deputy Director Appointed to VA State Board of Elections

Michael Thielen — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 06:11:00 GMT

Governor Bob McDonnell announced that Justin Riemer, former Deputy Director of the RNLA, will be appointed Deputy Secretary of the Virginia State Board of Elections:

Before his appointment as Deputy Secretary, Justin Riemer began working for the State Board of Elections (SBE) in November 2010 as Confidential Policy Advisor. Prior to his appointment to SBE, he worked on election law issues as Deputy Director for the Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA). Riemer also served as Associate Counsel on the McCain 2008 Presidential Campaign, where he provided legal counsel on state and federal election law issues.

During his almost two years at the RNLA, Justin was instrumental in RNLA efforts to ensure elections were open, fair and honest. Justin planned National Election Law Seminars and countless trainings across the country, including in Virginia. These trainings received continuing legal education credit from non-partisan state bars across the country.

"Governor McDonnell has appointed a highly competent and dedicated team of professionals to administer elections in Virginia," RNLA First Vice President Lee Goodman said. "Justin Riemer is a talented lawyer and election professional, and the people of Virginia can have confidence in its elections."

Justin proved his dedication to the nonpartisan enforcement and teaching of election law. The RNLA congratulates Justin, a dedicated, hard worker who will serve the voters of Virginia well.

Jacksonville Councilman Investigated for Voter Fraud

Brian Bennett — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:14:00 GMT

In August 2011, almost a year removed from the last major election, cases of voter fraud are still coming to light all over the country. This time, the perpetrator is Jacksonville Councilman Jerome Willingham. Willingham is being investigated for being registered to vote in two different places. Jacksonville, where he serves as a city councilman, and Maryland where Willingham says he worked for Walter Reed Medical Center.

In defending allegations of voter fraud, Willingham is taking an interesting approach; he is saying it is not illegal to be registered to vote in two places as long as he does not vote in them both. Willingham’s claim could not be a more egregious interpretation of the law. The National Voter Registration Form, the federal from used by voters to register to vote in their state, specifically states “You cannot be registered to vote in more than one place at a time.”

New allegations of voter fraud are being discovered all over the country, long after elections have occurred. Check the RNLA blog for updates on current voter fraud investigations.

100 House Democrats Send Letter to Holder Saying Voter ID is Illegal

Brian Bennett — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:44:00 GMT

Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder signed by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and 100 other House Democrats. The letter asks the Department of Justice to examine whether voter ID laws are illegal under the Voter Rights Act. In the letter, Fudge writes:

Many of these bills only have one true purpose, the disenfranchisement of eligible voters - especially the elderly, young voters, students, minorities and low-income voters.

Apparently, Ms. Fudge has not read a study conducted by Jeffrey Milyo after the voter ID law was passed in Indiana. Milyo’s study found that voter turnout actually increased by two percentage points in the next election. The letter also states that 11 percent of voting age citizens do not have government issued photo identification. Fudge’s statistics contrast a recent study by the Bureau of Motor Vehicles in her state of Ohio, finding that there are actually 28,000 more drivers licenses in Ohio than eligible voters. Fudge also makes claims of disenfranchisement because the cost of obtaining an ID would be too burdensome. However, she has clearly not read the voter ID law in her own state of Ohio, which states ID cards will be provided by the state, free of charge.

Additionally, her letter asks Holder to:

Exercise your authority to examine these laws so that voting rights are not jeopardized, and to brief Congress on Justice Department efforts to ensure these new laws are implemented in accordance with the Voting Rights Act.

Ms. Fudge should have examined the voter ID law and statistics from her own state. Her letter contains multiple inaccuracies and mischaracterizations of voter ID laws. She uses the same tired statistics that have long since been proven inaccurate. Also not surprising is that Fudge was able to convince 100 House Democrats including leaders Pelosi and Hoyer to co-sign her letter that contains such false representations. It continues the smear campaign against voter ID

To hear a debate on voter ID, please check out the RNLA website, http://www.rnla.org in the coming weeks. We will be posting a podcast of a voter ID debate from our Election Law Seminar, August 12 and 13 in Cincinnati Ohio. The panel will feature Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow Hans A. von Spakovsky and Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Professor Daniel P. Tokaji.

Soros Finds Another Way To Influence Elections

Brian Bennett — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:51:00 GMT

Billionaire Democratic financier George Soros is a huge fundraiser of Democratic candidates running for President, United States Senate, and the United States House of Representatives. However, Mr. Soros has also been keeping a close eye on another important office: Secretary of State.

Since 2006, Mr. Soros has given over ten thousand dollars to a small tax-exempt political group called the Secretary of State Project. The purpose of the group is to elect Democratic Secretaries of State. Mr. Soros and his colleagues are becoming involved in these races because the Secretary of State is the chief election official in the state. The Secretary of State Project has backed 11 winning candidates in 18 elections.

Instead of heeding the advice of the non-partisan Baker-Carter Commission, which recommended taking away the administration of elections from Secretaries of State and giving it to non-partisan election officials, Mr. Soros is seeking to make the process more partisan. The liberal Secretary of State Project also includes founders and former top aides for Democracy Alliance, MoveOn, and ActBlue.

Minnesota is the prime example of the project’s success. Helping to elect Mark Ritchie to be Minnesota Secretary of State in 2006 and 2010, Democrats had one of their own making key decisions when the extremely close U.S. Senate race between incumbent Norm Coleman, a Republican, and his challenger, former comedian Al Franken, went to a recount in 2008.

Mr. Ritchie headed the canvassing board that conducted the recount. Mr. Coleman initially had a lead of 206 out of 2.9 million votes cast, but after the recount, the board decided Mr. Franken had won by 225 votes.

The Secretary of State Project allows Democrats to have one of their own in a position to manipulate elections in all fifty states. Mr. Soros has spent millions of dollars trying to defeat Republican candidates. He has now found a cheaper way to do it: manipulate elections on a state level to get a desirable result.

Black Activists Disappointed in Clinton’s Jim Crow Analogy

Brian Bennett — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:49:00 GMT

At a July 6 address to the left-wing group Campus Progress, Bill Clinton followed the lead of his Democratic counterparts and compared voter ID laws to oppressive Jim Crow laws of the 1950s and 60s. Clinton said:

There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit the franchise that we see today.

Fortunately, black activists with Project 21 are not allowing Clinton to get away with this insulting and inaccurate statement. Project 21 spokesman Jerome Hudson issued a statement, saying:

It's hard not to ignore the deep historical ignorance in President Clinton comparing voter protection statutes to Jim Crow, and it leaves me deeply disappointed. Clinton diminishes himself by engaging in this brand of gutter politics. It's one thing to dispute a state's legislative attempts to preserve voter integrity, but Clinton crossed the line in his crusade to paint lawmakers concerned about vote suppression through fraud as racists and segregationists. It's despicable and deplorable.

Continuing the organization’s disappointment with Clinton’s comparison of state efforts to protect voters with oppressive Jim Crow laws, another Project 21 spokesman, Coby Dillard said:

Liberals are reintroducing the sins of the past in a disingenuous appeal for political support. That those sins are all they have to turn to shows that their nationally-rejected agenda — raising taxes, forcing an unconstitutional healthcare mandate on Americans and driving energy prices higher to promote an environmental agenda supported by their benefactors — is lost.

Like his Democratic colleagues before him, Clinton has blindly used an offensive analogy with no real facts supporting it. The disgust shown by minority groups, such as Project 21 prove that Clinton, and his Democratic colleagues comparisons are inaccurate and offensive.

2009 Ed Meese Award Winner Hans von Spakovsky Publishes Paper on Voter ID

Brian Bennett — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 16:56:00 GMT

2009 Ed Meese Award Winner and RNLA member Hans von Spakovsky has published a paper on voter ID for the Heritage Foundation. Mr. von Spakovsky says there is a need for voter ID laws because of the importance that eligible voters are not stolen or diluted by a fraudulent or bogus vote cast by an ineligible or imaginary voter.

Von Spakovsky responds to critics of voter ID by citing the endorsement of voter ID by the bi-partisan Baker-Carter Commission on Federal Election Reform. He also retorts critics who contend that voter fraud does not exist by citing the Supreme Court’s recognition of voter fraud in Crawford v. Marion County Board of Elections.

He states that because of the notoriously endemic under-enforcement of voter fraud cases, voter ID laws are needed to detect and deter such fraud. One case occurred in New York in 1984. A New York state grand jury discovered a widespread voter fraud conspiracy that occurred in Brooklyn over a 14-year span. There were thousands of fraudulent votes in state and congressional elections.

Von Spakovsky also discusses ACORN, the ethically challenged organization that has been found to have engaged in the submission of tens of thousands of invalid voter registration forms in multiple jurisdictions. This massive case of voter fraud was only able to occur because of minimal screening efforts. He also cites two recent studies by Secretaries of State that found inaccuracies in their voter rolls after only a preliminary check.

Von Spakovsky also responds to Democratic attacks that voter ID laws suppresses turnout of minority, poor, and elderly voters. He cites numerous independent studies focusing on voter ID. More specifically, a study that found after Georgia and Indiana passed voter ID laws, minority turnout actually increased. During the 2008 election in Georgia, a state with one of the strictest voter ID laws in the country, had the highest turnout in history. States that have no voter ID, such as Illinois, have had smaller increases in voter turnout. Studies also found 82 percent of Americans support voter ID, as well as a study in three states that less than 0.5 percent of eligible voters do not have proper identification.

Lawsuits have also been thrown out in Federal courts due to the inability of plaintiffs to produce a single case of voter suppression. This is indicative of the tireless efforts of voter ID opponents to hurl accusations of suppression and intimidation that have been proven untrue. It is unclear when they will drop their attacks to look at facts and support this reasonable and commonsense solution to voter fraud.

To read Hans von Spakovsky’s entire paper, go here.

Kansas Secretary Of State Defends Voter ID in Washington Post

Brian Bennett — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 13:49:00 GMT

The recent trend in state legislatures to pass voter ID laws has been a crucial step to ensuring the fairness and integrity of elections. However, Democratic attacks have inaccurately stated that these laws will result in voter suppression, even going as far to draw a comparison to discriminatory Jim Crow laws.

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, recently wrote an op-ed for the Washington post defending the state’s voter ID law. Kobach responded to critics who said he did not adequately prove the 221 incidents of voter fraud he cited as a reason for his office drafting the law. Kobach stated:

In fact, I presented this information to the Kansas legislature in January, and the numbers were extensively reported by the media. The 221 incidents of voter fraud included absentee ballot fraud, impersonation of another voter and other crimes. The vast majority of the cases were never investigated fully because Kansas county attorneys lack the time and resources to pursue voter fraud at the expense of other criminal investigations. Of the approximately 30 cases that were fully investigated, seven resulted in prosecutions. All seven yielded convictions.

Kobach also contravened the fundamentally flawed number from the left-leaning Brennan Center comparing the number of reported cases of voter fraud in a state to the number of votes cast in the state. Kobach responds:

[S]uch use of these statistics is fundamentally flawed. First, most forms of voter fraud are extremely difficult to detect. We see only the tip of the iceberg; the number of instances is likely to be much higher than the number of reported cases. Second, asking what percentage of votes were cast illegally misses the point. The relevant question is: Does the number of illegal votes exceed the margin of victory in a particular race? All too often, the answer is yes.

Kobach also cites an instance of voter fraud in Missouri just last year in a Democratic primary when a state Representative coached 50 Somali citizens, who did not speak English, to vote for him. He won by one vote. Missouri Democratic Governor Jay Nixon ignored such evidence of voter fraud when he vetoed a voter ID bill last month passed by the state legislature.

Kobach then cites a recent, significant instance of voter fraud stealing an election. It was the 2008 U.S. Senate race in Minnesota, in which after a lengthy recount, Democrat Al Franken beat incumbent Republican Norm Coleman by 312 votes. But, in a comprehensive study following the recount, Minnesota Majority found that illegal felons cast 341 votes for Al Franken. Minnesota Democratic Governor Mark Dayton also ignored such evidence of fraud when he too vetoed a voter ID bill passed by the state legislature.

Opponents of voter ID can’t fight the facts. Voter fraud is a real problem that can be prevented by voter ID laws. However, instead of taking proactive steps to stop it, Democrats are rejecting voter ID laws and ignoring the evidence of fraud in their states.

Read Kobach’s op-ed here.

Ohio Secretary of State Wants Voter Fraud Investigation

Brian Bennett — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 15:37:00 GMT

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted sent a letter to the attorney general and county prosecutor to investigate a group of Democrats that allegedly committed voter fraud during the 2010 election. The investigation will determine if absentee ballots in Lawrence County were cast in circumvention of Ohio election law.

Although Mr. Husted’s letter does not specifically name any parties, testimony suggests that the investigation will focus on Russell Bennett, Butch Singer, Russell Malone, Steve Burcham (Lawrence County Treasurer), Steve Burcham’s wife, and Don Simmons (Democratic Party Committeeman). Mr. Husted wants an investigation to determine if they falsely represented on absent voter’s applications that the voter wanted his or her ballot sent to Russell Bennett’s post office box. At issue are 77 absentee ballots that were reportedly sent to the PO Box of Russell Bennett. Butch Singer testified that he gave absentee ballot applications he collected to others before he brought it to the board, dropping them off at different locations for Steven Burcham and Douglas Malone to collect.

The discrepancy was discovered last October, when a board of elections employee noticed that the handwriting in the “Send Ballot To” portion of the applications differed from that in the section with the voter’s name. The board then contacted 10 voters to see where they wanted their ballot sent. All 10 voters replied that they wanted their ballots mailed to them at their home address, suggesting that the ‘Send Ballot To’ portion of the absentee ballot application was completed after the voters filled in their application form.

If the investigation is opened, the attorney general and county prosecutor will likely pursue three charges. One charge investigated will likely be for knowingly making a false misrepresentation for obtaining an absent voter’s ballot. A second election law that would be violated states that no one should knowingly not forward an absentee ballot application to the appropriate election official that the voter entrusted him to do so. A third election law violated states that no one shall knowingly possess the absentee ballot of another voter unless the voter is confined or disabled. Violations of these election laws are fourth degree felonies, which carry a maximum penalty of 18 months in prison and $5,000 fine for each conviction.

In speaking about his reasons for requesting an investigation, Secretary of State Husted said:

There was an attempt to violate the election law with the attempt to cast and count fraudulent votes. If we didn’t believe there were irregularities that amounted to a violation of law we would not have referred it to the attorney general and the county prosecutor.

Luckily, thanks to the due diligence of officials at the Lawrence County Board of Elections, no fraudulent votes were counted. However, not all jurisdictions can be so lucky. Although this case of voter fraud seems to have been thwarted with proper charges brought against the perpetrators, there are still far too many instances of successful voter fraud in the United States.

To read Mr. Husted’s entire letter requesting an investigation, go here

Rhode Island Governor Signs Voter ID Into Law; Cites Minority Support

Brian Bennett — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 17:05:00 GMT

On Tuesday, Independent Governor Lincoln Chaffee signed a voter ID bill into law. The bill was passed with overwhelming support by both houses of the Rhode Island legislature, which are controlled by Democrats.

The most interesting part about this voter ID bill is the support it received from minority communities. In a press release citing his support for the voter ID law, Governor Chaffee said:

As the General Assembly debated legislation requiring Rhode Island voters to present valid identification at the polls, I met with a number of experts on both sides to discuss this complex issue. Notably, I spoke with representatives of our state’s minority communities, and I found their concerns about voter fraud and their support for this bill particularly compelling.

Additionally, Harold Metts, the sponsor of the bill in the Rhode Island Senate said, “As a minority citizen and a senior citizen I would not support anything that I thought would present obstacles or limit protections”

The Rhode Island voter ID bill, which was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by an Independent Governor, and supported by minority communities, thwarts attempts by Democrats to say voter ID bills are being passed by Republicans to suppress minority turnout. Democrats should be more concerned about the fairness and integrity of elections than hurling unfounded accusations of voter suppression.

Colbert Got the Coverage; But Other Super PAC Ruling Bigger News

Brian Bennett — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 12:01:00 GMT

The media circus at yesterday’s FEC hearing was due in large part to Stephen Colbert’s request to form a super PAC and fall under the media exemption, so he would not have to report in-kind contributions from his media entity, Viacom. (See yesterday’s blog post for a more detailed explanation.) However, what most people probably do not know is that the FEC considered another issue that has broader campaign finance implications.

An advisory opinion request, submitted on behalf of Majority PAC and House Majority PAC sough guidance on the permissibility of federal candidates and officeholders to solicit contributions on behalf of the super PAC. In a unanimous 6-0 vote, the FEC ruled it is permissible for candidates to solicit up to $5,000 on behalf of super PACs.

RNLA Board of Governors member, General Counsel of the James Madison Center for Free Speech, and Secretary/Treasurer/General Counsel of the James Republican Super PAC James Bopp Jr., comments:

We are pleased that the FEC has recognized that candidates and political-party officials may praise, endorse, and solicit for Super PACs. This means that Republican Super PAC can proceed with its plans and accomplish its goals.

This was probably the more important ruling in yesterday’s FEC hearing. Although Colbert’s super PAC received more media coverage, the ruling is limited, and will only apply to people of his stature. The FEC’s other ruling will open up the process to members of Congress to exercise their First Amendment rights to solicit money for super PACs. This ruling is proof that importance of laws is not determined by the amount of cameras or media coverage it receives.

To read the advisory opinion, go here.

It's No Joke: FEC Oks Colbert Super PAC

Brian Bennett — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:25:00 GMT

This morning, at a cozy 9^th floor hearing room at the Federal Elections Commission, comedian and talk show host Stephen Colbert received approval to establish his super PAC. Mr. Colbert’s PAC will be able to raise and spend an unlimited amount of money, and make unlimited expenditures, provided all his expenditures are not coordinated with any candidate, political committee, or party.

A so-called “super PAC” is a political action committee that may accept unlimited contributions from authorized sources (individuals, political committees, corporations, and labor organizations), but is only authorized to make independent expenditures (expenditures not coordinated with any candidate, party, or political committee). A super PAC has no limit on the amount of contributions it can accept from authorized sources. Additionally, it can accept contributions from corporations and labor organizations, which candidates, parties, and political committees cannot. Mr. Colbert’s legal issue was not an easy one to decide because of the uniqueness of his request to fall under the media exemption which establishing a PAC. However, Mr. Colbert is not the first one vying to establish a super PAC. While initially against super PACs, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi now want to raise money for Super PACs. (In a separate ruling today, the FEC ruled that federal office holders may not raise unlimited funds for super PACs.)

In a bi-partisan 5-1 vote, the Federal Elections Commission approved an Advisory Opinion which gave Mr. Colbert almost everything he asked for. First, Mr. Colbert is allowed to establish his “Super PAC.,” Second, if the committee is discussed on Mr. Colbert’s show, he does not have to disclose in-kind contributions from Comedy Central’s parent company, Viacom. The Commission determined these activities would fall under “press exemption,” which says that a contribution or expenditure would not result from “any cost incurred in covering or carrying a news story, commentary, or editorial by a news station unless owned by a political entity.” However, in a minor defeat, if Mr. Colbert’s independent expenditures are distributed outside of his show, he must disclose these as in-kind contributions from Viacom. The Commission said these would be considered in-kind contributions because distributing these advertisements outside Mr. Colbert’s show would fall outside their legitimate press function.

The one dissenting vote came from Commissioner Donald McGahn, who agreed that Mr. Colbert should be allowed to establish his PAC and solicit unlimited contributions, as well as make unlimited independent expenditures. However, Commissioner McGahn does not think advertisements outside of Mr. Colbert’s show need to be reported as in-kind contributions. Commissioner McGahn said:

I agree with question 1 and question 3, [pertaining to the establishment of the PAC, soliciting of funds, and production of independent expenditures] but I am skeptical that other advertising by Viacom is definitely something that should be reported. There are still questions of who the media are that need to be addressed in rules after Citizens United.

It is unclear whether Mr. Colbert knew what a legal process establishing his PAC would be. However, the FEC gave Mr. Colbert almost everything he wanted. The FEC is allowing him to establish his PAC, solicit unlimited contributions, and make unlimited independent expenditures. However, they determined that he falls under the press exemption for PAC activity on his program. This one minor defeat will likely not phase Mr. Colbert, as his PAC will most likely be run and monitored by his lawyer and campaign finance expert, Trevor Potter. The FEC’s ruling opens up other political commentators, and talk show hosts, to establish super PACs, as well as discuss these PACs on their respective programs, falling under the media exemption. The FEC gave Mr. Colbert the power, now the question is, will he use it?

To read all the proposed advisory opinions, go here. To listen to an audio recording of the hearing, go here