"District Liked Its Earmarks, Then Elected Someone Who Didn't"

The NY Times offers this report.

Complaint in Florida Redistricting Initiative Lawsuit Seeking to Force Section 5 Preclearance Request

Read it here (via Richard Winger).

"Report: Voter ID law 'unaffordable' for North Carolina"

Facing South: "Today, Facing South and the Institute for Southern Studies released an analysis [pdf] showing that a voter ID bill proposed by North Carolina Republicans could cost the state $20 million or more over the next three years, exacerbating the state's $3.7 billion budget gap."

"McGahn Faults FEC on Enforcement Matters; Declares 'Standards Vary From Case to Case'"

BNA offers this report about a 45 page, 221 footnote statement by FEC Commissioner McGahn. BNA: "While the FEC has been criticized by others for being too lenient in its enforcement posture, McGahn indicated the commission's handling of a number of enforcement cases has been overly strict and arbitrary and has sewed confusion and fear in the regulated political community."

More Briefing Ordered by Federal Judge in Shelby County VRA Section 5 Constitutionality Case

Here's the order:

On the Court's own motion, and upon consideration of the arguments of counsel at the February 2, 2011 hearing and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall submit additional briefing by not later than February 16, 2011, which shall be limited to the following question: in considering the reauthorization of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in 2006, was it "rational in both practice and theory," South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 330 (1966), for Congress to preserve the existing coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Act? In answering this question, the parties are strongly encouraged to point to specific instances in the legislative record that support their position. The parties are also encouraged to address each aspect of the question separately -- that is, to explain both why Section 4(b) is or is not rational "in practice" and why Section 4(b) is or is not rational "in theory." Plaintiff's memorandum addressing this question shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages in length, and defendant's memorandum addressing this question also shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages in length. Each defendant-intervenor may file its own memorandum addressing this question, which shall not exceed seven (7) pages in length; defendant-intervenors are, however, strongly encouraged to file a joint memorandum, not to exceed fifteen (15) pages in length, in order to avoid unnecessary duplication. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 2/4/11.(lcjdb1).