"Critics: State rush on touch screens risks secure voting; Activists say substandard devices being considered for June; disabled advocates pleased"

The Oakland Tribune offers this report.

"Reforming Reform"

Gary Andres offers this commentary in the Washington Times. It begins: "Congress may be in for some surprises if it tries to alter lobbying and ethics rules without considering how these changes affect campaign finance and elections. Bifurcating these issues may make sense as a tactic to ease the passage of legislation, but history suggests separating rules related to "petitioning the government" from elections is easier said than done. That's because lobbying, ethics, and campaign reform share two real-world common denominators -- unintended consequences and inter-relatedness. Like the water balloon of American politics, squeezing First Amendment practices doesn't make them disappear; they just pop out somewhere else."

"State high court hears voting machine case"

See this report from Pennsylvania.

"VRA's Unlikely Patron Keeps Fighting"

Roll Call offers this very interesting report (paid subscription required) about Rep. Sensenbrenner's role in bringing the VRA renewal bill through the House.

"New York Is Sued by U.S. on Delay of Vote System"

The NY Times offers this report.

"Miss. Dems want change in primaries; Lawsuit calls on state to prevent independents from casting votes"

See this report from the Clarion-Ledger. Thanks to Steve Rankin for the link.

What will happen in the Texas Redistricting Cases?

From all of the articles and reports below, what is likely to happen in the Texas redistricting cases? No one knows for sure, but it appears from oral argument comments the following is the most likely scenario:

1. No majority to find a partisan gerrymander (under equal protection, First Amendment, or any other clause of the Constitution) ---apparently this leaves Vieth in place, because it does not appear that Justice Kennedy was signalling he's ready to vote for nonjusticiablity
2. No majority to hold that mid-decade redistricting violates one person, one vote because of the failure to use updated census data
3. No majority to find a Shaw violation (maybe that gets only Justice Kennedy's vote)
4. A possible majority to hold that one or two districts violates section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but no majority to hold that coalitional or influence disticts count for section 2 purposes (and a possible majority to affirmatively reject that stand).

Here are the reports I've seen:
New York Times
Wall Street Journal
Washington Post (and this Dana Milbank column reporting that Justice Ginburg napped during 15 minutes of the 2 hour afternoon argument)
Los Angeles Times
USA Today
Texas newspapers: here, here, here, and here
Dahlia Lithwick (Slate)
Law.com
Roll Call (which seemed to believe a statement by Justice Scalia was made by Justice Kennedy)
Ned Foley (on the claims involving districts 23, 24, 25)
Brad Smith (at the electronic roundable)
Bob Bauer (on the Texas and Vermont cases and political competition)
My earlier roundup of oral argument reports, including this report from Lyle Denniston

-- 
Rick Hasen
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
919 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