Electionlawblog news and commentary 6/3/06

The newspaper offers Measure Would Bar Out-of-Town Money in Humboldt County Races. A snippet: "If [Measure T] passes and then survives an almost inevitable legal challenge, it would bar donations to local candidates or initiatives by any out-of-town corporation. That would cover almost all of the world's companies. As defined in the measure, a 'non local' corporation is one with even a single employee, director or shareholder outside the county. However, the measure would allow labor unions with just one Humboldt County member to donate freely."

It also offers Ballot Firm's Ties to Venezuela Criticized, which begins: "Some American officials worry that Sequoia Voting Systems' foreign link could compromise the integrity of the U.S. election process."

Tokaji Answers the Call

Dan Tokaji, whose views on this I respect more than anyone else, has written this must-read analysis of RFK Jr's Rolling Stone article claiming that the 2004 presidential election was stolen in Ohio. A snippet:

Kennedy's treatment of his subject differs from most "stolen election" arguments we've heard since 2004, in that it's much more comprehensively researched -- including over 200 footnotes that would make a law professor proud. While there's not a whole lot of new information here, Kennedy does a nice job of explaining and cataloguing the numerous problems that did in fact occur in Ohio's 2004 election. For reasons explained below, I don't think he makes a persuasive case that the election was "stolen" (i.e., that Kerry really won). The article is nevertheless useful in exposing how shoddy election administration practices can result in lost votes, and how some recently enacted laws will make things worse rather than better.
Read Dan's thorough analysis.

Two From the Los Angeles Times

Tokaji Answers the Call

Section 203 Hearing Postponed Again