news of the day 10/10/03

L.A. Times recall campaign finance recap

"Texas GOP Makes Another Redistricting Bid: Democrats Promise to Fight Proposal"

The Washington Post offers this report.

Preliminary statistics indicate higher error for punch cards in recall race

See this preliminary analysis by Steven Hertzberg of Votewatch, a new non-partisan vote monitoring group. According to Hertzberg:

A preliminary analysis of the election returns shows that of the ballots cast, 42.5% were on Votomatic and Pollstar punch card machines. Our preliminary calculations show that Question #1 was either not marked by the voter or recorded by the equipment in 7.7% of the ballots cast on these machines. The average "not counted/marked" rate for the remaining voting systems is 2.3%, with the next highest rate being the Optech optical scanner at 4.35%."
Of course, a full study will have to control for other factors. For example, voters in counties with punch cards might have been more or less likely for other reasons to have abstained on question 1. But the preliminary figures raise reasons for further concern over the use of such machines.
UPDATE: See also this A.P. report.

"Deal to End Punch Card Voting: Change in Ballot Seen by 2006"

The Chicago Tribune offers this report (registration required) on a settlement of the Illinois punch card litigation. Readers of this blog will recall that earlier in the litigation, a federal district court held that the use of punch card voting in some parts of Illinois but not others constituted an equal protection violation under Bush v. Gore. That case, Black v. McGuffage, is described on page 9 of the 2003 Election Law casebook supplement.

Of course, what this settlement means is that punch cards will be used in the 2004 presidential election in Illinois, and the settlement would make it difficult for others to later sue to enjoin the use of punch cards in that election.

"FEC Backs Group's Campaign Money Plan"

A.P. offers this report, which begins: "The Federal Election Commission on Thursday backed a group's plan to gather donations for the Democratic presidential nominee months before the candidate is picked, turning aside concerns raised by commission lawyers. The political action committee, known as WE LEAD, would be able to give an unlimited total to the Democratic nominee-to-be instead of facing the $5,000-per-candidate limit applied to other PACs. Each individual sending a check to the group earmarked for the 'presumptive nominee' could give up to $2,000."

New ballot access case

The First Circuit has decided Perez-Guzman v. Gracia. The opinion strikes down a provision of Puerto Rico law requiring that each person signing a petition endorsing a new political party wishing access to the ballot must do so with a notarized signature. The court explained: "In Puerto Rico, organizations that seek to be recognized as political parties must gather roughly 100,000 endorsing petitions, each signed by a registered voter and sworn to before a notary public. Since only a lawyer can become a notary in Puerto Rico, there are fewer than 8,000 notaries in the entire commonwealth — and notarial services do not come cheap." The court rejected the argument that the law could be justified as a means of preventing fraud.

Thanks to Bill McGeveran for the pointer.

-- 
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org