"Demonizing political equality"

Tara Malloy has written this oped for the National Law Journal, with the subhead: "It used to be uncontroversial to suggest that privately financed elections might undercut the democratic ideal of one person/one vote by favoring the wealthy. But now some justices seem to see any hint of equalizing as an invidious interest."

"Dems replacing lone party member on recount panel"

The Indianapolis Star reports.

Inside Higher Ed on the Brad Smith Dean Controversy

See here. More from Matthew Franck.

"Redistricting Battle Under Way, With Lobbyists and Lawyers"

The NY Times offers this report.

Electionline Weekly Leads with a Litigation Update

Download it here.

"What Happened in Iowa?"

David Pozen has posted this draft on SSRN (forthcoming, Columbia Law Review Sidebar). Here is the abstract:

November 2, 2010 is the latest milestone in the evolution of state judicial elections from sleepy, sterile affairs into meaningful political contests. Following an aggressive ouster campaign, voters in Iowa removed three supreme court justices, including the chief justice, who had joined an opinion finding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Supporters of the campaign rallied around the mantra, "It's we the people, not we the courts" Voter turnout surged to unprecedented levels; the national media riveted attention on the event. No sitting Iowa justice had ever lost a retention election before.

This essay -- a surreply to Nicole Mansker & Neal Devins, Do Judicial Elections Facilitate Popular Constitutionalism; Can They?, 111 Colum. L. Rev. Sidebar 27 (2011) == explains why the Iowa elections corroborate, yet also complicate, the thesis that judicial elections offer important outlets for popular constitutionalism. While the retention vote sparked (and vindicated) an exceptional episode of constitutional mobilization, the role played by out-of-state interests highlights a number of difficult questions regarding popular constitutionalism's relationship to federalism and popular sovereignty. The essay concludes with a note on the prospects for judicial election reform.

The Latest on Wisconsin Supreme Court Election

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel offers State elections officials dispatched to examine Waukesha County count.

AP reports that Ms. Kloppenburg is raising recall funds.

Jay Weiner compares Wisconsin and Minnesota recount procedures.

And Sandy Levinson blogs on judicial elections generally, including Wisconsin.

Was I a Hypocrite, Or Just Expressing Disappointment that Some Democrats Also Made Unsubstantiated Allegations of Fraud in WI Supreme Court Race?

You decide. (Here's my original post).

"Judge: Democrats' challenge to Secretary of State White is valid"

See here.

As the WI Supreme Court Election Moves Beyond the Margin of Litigation Toward Prosser, What Will Become of Republican Fraud Claims?

With news reports indicating that human error was responsible for a failure to include 7,582 votes in favor of Justice Prosser in the vote totals, I breathe a sigh of relief from the point of view of election administration. Though it is possible that there will be other, countervailing errors, it seems doubtful that they could make up this huge gain.

Over the last day and a half, I have been collecting and blogging links showing Republican concerns about voter fraud. Here's Ann Althouse, before the new numbers were revealed, responding to my Politico piece:

So... because past claims of fraud have been "methodically debunked" -- have they? -- we should stop even looking for fraud? We'll only suffer if we keep checking for cheaters? This sounds way too preemptive to me. I've spent the last 2 months in a vortex of political ugliness and saw it grafted onto the judicial election. I saw frantically impassioned protesters grasping at the symbolism of this election and building an intense shared feeling of entitlement to shift the politics of this state. I heard the phrase "by any means necessary" more than once.

In this context, Prosser proponents have every right to drag us through the search for fraud one more time. I hope they don't find it, and Professor Hasen can add this new example to his next there-is-no-fraud column. But there's a 204 vote margin in this crazy election. We need to feel confident that the outcome is correct.

There's John Fund too before this calling out the fraud.

Here's what I expect: With Prosser in the lead, the claims of fraud on the Republican side will stop. The Democrats will not raise claims of fraud even if they contest the election.

UPDATE: I already may need to take back the last part of this post: looks like Dems may soon start playing fraud card in WI Sup Ct race, focusing on the clerk who found the lost votes.

"Predictable: Right-Wing Media Respond To WI Supreme Court Election With Baseless Voter Fraud Allegations"

Media Matters for America has put up this post, which further validates my prediction.

"Does Cumulative Voting Really Help Peoria's Blacks?"

Pam Adams has written this column.