"Parties Anticipate Chaotic Election"

The San Francisco Chronicle offers this report.

"Parties Gird For Battle if Election Ends Up in Court"

The Wall Street Journal offers this report.

Staples on Felon Disenfranchisement

See this Editorial Observer column in the New York Times.

"How to Steal an Election"

Jeff Jacoby offers this Boston Globe oped.

More on Potential Legal Challenges to Colorado's Amendment 36

The Washington Post offers Colorado Initiative Could Be Key to Presidential Race, mentioning the potential Article II challenge that might be mounted should the presidency hang in the balance over Colorado's initiative to change the way its electoral votes are allocated (from winner take all to proportionally). I presented some earlier legal analysis of this issue in this post, which also links to my Los Angeles Times oped on the subject from earlier this week.

A few more thoughts now. First, responding to this hypothetical, my colleague Karl Manheim writes:

Doesn't this happen often with complimentary ballot items? I wouldn't have voted for Schwarzenegger had I known Davis would actually be recalled. I wouldn't have voted to limit the state's ability to borrow had I known the $16B bond would have passed, etc.

This of course is true. The L.A. Times ran a story earlier this week (blogged below) noting that voters voting on two gaming initiatives in California may not know how things will work if both of them pass but one initiative gains more votes than the other.
But does that answer the question whether there is a due process violation?

One further point. I have been saying since Bush v. Gore that whatever legal challenges to an election that can be brought before an election should be brought. And if they are not brought before the election, the legal challenge should be barred by the doctrine of "laches" after the election. Otherwise, people have an "option:" if the election goes the way I like, I don't raise the legal issue; if it goes the other way, I do. If opponents of Amendment 36 fail to seek pre-election review on Article II grounds before the election, will it be too late? The answer may turn on the extent of pre-election review in Colorado. If it is freely available for such claims, should a challenge be brought now? Indeed, may such a challenge already be barred by laches?

The New York Times Editorializes on Nevada's Electronic Voting Machines with Paper Trails

See here.

"Reforming the Reform"

Debra J. Saunders offers this column in the San Francisco Chronicle.

"Yet Another Layer of Tax Laws Shields Political Donors"

Peter Overby offers this Politically Speaking column on the NPR website.

"FEC Chairman is An Opponent of the Laws His Agency Governs"

The New York Sun offers this report (to subscribers only).

"Issue Ads? Let 'Em Rip!"

Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth offers this Washington Post oped.

Florida Supreme Court Puts Nader Back on Ballot

Howard Bashman links to all the news stories and the opinion itself here and here.

-- 
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