"Electronic voting switch threatens mass confusion"

The Financial Times (London) offers this report, which begins: "The last three election cycles in the US have been marked by controversy not only about candidates, but also about the fairness and accuracy of the voting process. And as voters head to the polls today for primaries in some jurisdictions, the coming cycle promises more of the same. With about 8,000 separate election authorities managing approximately 175,000 polling places and perhaps as many as 150,000 different ballot forms that include choices for everyone from senator to dogcatcher, American elections are complex even when all goes well. But this cycle sees many states and smaller jurisdictions making last-minute efforts to switch to electronic voting, and early signs of trouble are appearing." Link via Brad Blog.

On the Agenda

Language for extending the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act will be released later today. I'll post the language later today when it is publicly available. Meanwhile, Ed Blum is not happy:

Over the last few years, the Supreme Court has tried to clear up some of the confusion it previously created over how states must draw districts in order to comply with Section 5. One case in particular, Georgia v. Ashcroft, gave state legislatures more leeway in unpacking minorities from ultra-safe minority districts. The Court noted in a 5-4 decision that minorities' interests may be better served if they aren't stuffed into one district, creating a majority of minorities, but instead spread into surrounding districts where they may have greater influence in election contests. The conservatives on the court--Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy--joined the majority opinion written by Justice O’Connor by noting that "the Voting Rights Act, as properly interpreted, should encourage the transition to a society where race no longer matters."

So what does the Republican Congress plan to do with this valuable legal doctrine? Well, they plan to overturn it by making compliance with Section 5 dependent upon the election of minority-preferred candidates. This will ensure heavily packed minority congressional districts that stifle competition, ideologically polarize elections, and insulate Republican representatives from minorities and minority representatives from Republicans.

Others are happier. More to come....

"Firm committed to reliable voting system"

Jack Blaine, president of Sequoia Voting Systems, offers this letter to the editor in response to Richard Brand's March 27 Other Views piece, Forget Dubai -- worry about Smartmatic instead:

"G.O.P. Moderates Rebuff Lobbyists, Then Woo Them"

The New York Times offers this report. It begins: "After appearing to falter Thursday, the House of Representatives is once again poised to pass a new package of lobbying restrictions, thanks largely to the efforts of an alliance of Republican moderates. Nothing in the bill, however, would stop those same Republican moderates from continuing to court corporate lobbyists with some unusually explicit invitations to lunch. For $5,000, a lobbyist can join lawmakers and staff members of the alliance, the Republican Main Street Partnership, for a lunchtime policy briefing by an outside expert. For $15,000, the lobbyist can attend four lunches, two of them with briefings by an outside expert and two with briefings from members of Congress. And for $25,000, the lobbyist can have three lunch briefings with lawmakers, not to mention V.I.P. seating for eight at a black-tie dinner for the moderates' coalition."

-- 
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