Tenth Circuit Upholds Supermajority Requirement for Initiatives Dealing only with Certain Topics

Howard Bashman has the details about the opinion written by Judge Michael McConnell.

"NVRA Notice Letter in Ohio"

Lisa Danetz has this post on Demos's Democracy Dispatches blog. It begins: "This past Friday, May 12, 2006, Demos' new collaboration partner -- NVRI -- along with the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Project Vote, and Dechert LLP, sent a Notice Letter to Secretary of State Ken Blackwell on behalf of Ohio ACORN, notifying Blackwell of Ohio's widespread non-compliance with the public assistance provisions of the National Voter Registration Act. The letter is intended to provide the Secretary of State with a final opportunity to bring Ohio into compliance before the initiation of litigation to enforce the law. You can access the letter here."

More Partisan Fighting in Maryland over Election Administration Reform

See here.

"Voting-rights report slams S.D."

The Rapid City Journal offers this report. AP also offers Voting Rights Act up for renewal again.

"Competition policy for elections: Do campaign contribution limits matter?"

Thomas Stratman and J. Aparicio-Castillo have published this article in Public Choice (subscribers only, but the working paper version is here). Here is the abstract:

This paper examines whether campaign contribution restrictions have consequences for election outcomes. States are a natural laboratory to examine this issue. We analyze elections to Assemblies from 1980 to 2001 and determine whether candidates' vote shares are altered by changes in state campaign contribution restrictions. We find that limits on giving narrow the margin of victory of the winning candidate. Limits lead to closer elections for future incumbents, but have less effect on the margin of victory of incumbents who passed the campaign finance legislation. We also find some evidence that contribution limits increase the number of candidates in the race.

"The New Ohio Redistricting Proposal"

Dan Tokaji has this informative post on his Equal Vote blog.

Pitts: We Still Have a President, Right?

To date, everyone's focus has been Congress, Congress, and yet more Congress. Are the votes there to pass an extension? What will the legislation that Congress passes look like? Will Congress create a good enough record to satisfy the Supreme Court's congruence and proportionality review?

Yet the last time I checked, we still have a President and we also still have a Constitution (although after all this wire-tapping stuff, the former statement is probably more accurate than the latter). This being the situation, we should remember that the Constitution requires Congress to present whatever legislation it passes to the President for his signature.

So why worry about the President? After all, he is incredibly weak, with approval ratings hovering around the freezing point. And he vetoes, quite literally, nothing. And he's on record as saying he supports an extension of the Voting Rights Act. Not so fearless prediction: the President will sign whatever Congress sends him.

But what about the President's infamous signing statements? What will the signing statement for the extension, if any, say? Would a signing statement matter as to how Republican Administrations enforce the Act? Would it matter to the Supreme Court's determination of the constitutionality of the Act? Should civil rights groups be lobbying the President regarding the content of his signing statement (or lobbying him not to issue any signing statement at all)? Are they already doing this?

Is any discussion of the President in the context of the extension, truly, academic?

--Mike Pitts

"Ballot Brouhaha: Voting Rights Act cases over language barriers flourish"

The National Law Journal offers this report (paid subscription required).

Weighing in on VRA Renewal

To keep the guest blogging forum on VRA renewal manageable, I've limited it to law professors who have written about voting rights issues. But there's some interesting commentary coming over the Election law listserv from others, including political scientists and voting rights attorneys. From time to time, I'll provide links to their listserv postings. Here is the first one:
David Epstein has posted "Three papers on Georgia v. Ashcroft VRA Renewal."
UPDATE: Voting rghts attorney Mark Posner offers these thoughts on section 5 renewal, including a response to Mike Pitts' earlier posts on the blog.
David Epstein writes The Politics of Renewal.

Jubelirer Loses

Partisan gerrymandering junkies know the name Robert Jubelirer from the Supreme Court's recent Vieth v. Jubelirer case. Mr. Jubelirer, President Pro Tem of the Pa. Senate, lost the primary yesterday to a more conservative opponent, apparently out of voter anger over a legislative pay raise.