| Subject: Electionlawblog news and commentary 3/22/06 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 3/22/2006, 7:43 AM |
| To: election-law |
Newhouse News Service offers this
report, which begins: "Historians Matthew Lassiter, Joseph Crespino
and Kevin Kruse are part of the first generation of whites to grow up
in the post-Jim Crow South. They're also at the leading edge of a group
of younger scholars who say it's time to stop considering the South a
region apart -- especially on race, the sine qua non of Southern
exceptionalism." Another snippet: "It isn't a strictly academic matter.
Civil rights groups seeking congressional extension of the Voting
Rights Act depend on evidence that the South remains different as proof
that the region still requires federal oversight. And David Bositis, an
expert on black politics at the Joint Center for Political and Economic
Studies in Washington, said the evidence is ample -- beginning with far
higher rates of racially polarized voting, of felon disenfranchisement,
of poverty and of capital punishment. Lassiter acknowledged that 'our
argument could be misused or misinterpreted for political purposes.'
But, he said, to indulge what he considers the fiction that the South
now approaches race in wholly different ways distorts not just Southern
history, but American history."
The Monterey Herald offers Judge
mulls election on general plan.
AP offers this
report, which begins: "Twelve senators are asking Defense Secretary
Donald H. Rumsfeld to make it easier for troops abroad to vote, saying
the current system is outdated."
A.P. offers this
report, which begins: " A group of voters sued the state and 18
counties Tuesday in a bid to prevent them from using Diebold Election
Systems' electronic voting machines in California's general election.
The suit - filed by the advocacy group Voter Action on behalf of about
a dozen voters - alleges that Diebold's touch-screen machines lack
adequate security and aren't user-friendly for the disabled." The
complaint is here.
A few news stories with some interesting allegations of campaign
finance improprieties. This
San Diego Union-Tribune story reports that "Acting as her
husband's campaign consultant, Julie Doolittle [spouse of Rep. John T.
Doolittle] charged his campaign and his Superior California Political
Action Committee a 15 percent commission on any contribution she helped
bring in. As a member of two key committees in the House –
Appropriations and Administration – Doolittle is well-positioned to
help contractors gain funding through congressional earmarks. Between
2002 and 2005, Wilkes and his associates and lobbyists gave Doolittle's
campaign and political action committee $118,000, more than they gave
any other politician, including Cunningham. Calculations based on
federal and state campaign records suggest that Doolittle's wife
received at least $14,400 of that money in commissions. Meanwhile,
Doolittle helped Wilkes get at least $37 million in government
contracts." The Baltimore Sun reports
that "Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele has collected thousands of dollars in
campaign contributions from board members of the not-for-profit
organizations selected by his office to receive unrestricted state
grants, a review of campaign finance records shows. Officials with
three of four African-American groups that in early 2004 received a
combined $250,000 - the result of an insurance settlement received by
the state - gave $13,711 to the lieutenant governor about the same time
or in the months after, according to a state elections board database."
Dan Tokaji has posted this
commentary on the Moritz election law site.
-- 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