Tag Archives: Topic: Elections

MarylandReporter.com: “The state is refusing to accept a $60,000 agreement that the Office of the Attorney General reached with the American Civil Liberties Union and ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). The Board of Public Works Wednesday rejected the settlement that would have resolved a long-standing dispute over an Ehrlich-administration Maryland Transit Administration prohibition on political activity at public transportation properties.”

CBS: “Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Oversight committee, told CBS News Wednesday that he will call for a special prosecutor to investigate the White House if it does not address Rep. Joe Sestak’s claim that he was offered a federal job in exchange for dropping out of the Pennsylvania Senate primary . . . ”

Thomas Sowell writes at Real Clear Politics: “The voters will have had no experience with the actual, concrete effect of the government takeover of medical care at the time of either the 2010 Congressional elections or the 2012 Presidential elections. All they will have will be conflicting rhetoric– and you can depend on the mainstream media to go along with the rhetoric of those who passed this medical care bill . . . But the 2010 election may be the last chance to halt the dismantling of America. It can be the point of no return.”

BallotPedia has issued this update with links to various ballot initatives.”

Boston Globe (AP): “A New Jersey appeals court has put on hold a conservative tea party group’s effort to throw a Democratic U.S. senator out of office.”

San Francisco Chronicle: “With businesses and trial lawyers pouring money into state judicial races around the nation, California Chief Justice Ronald George appointed a Commission for Impartial Courts in 2007 to study judicial elections in California and decide whether changes were needed to promote judicial independence and public confidence in the courts. The commission’s chairman, state Supreme Court Justice Ming Chin, spoke to Chronicle reporter Bob Egelko about some of the proposals that the commission is recommending.”

Christian Newswire: “The Colorado Secretary of State has disclosed that 15,690 of the 79,648 signatures submitted by Personhood Colorado were invalid. Beginning today, March 4, Personhood Colorado will have 15 days, per state initiative law, to replace the signatures . . . ”

Liberty Counsel: “Today, Liberty Counsel filed an Amicus Brief with the United States Supreme Court supporting the privacy of proponents who signed a petition in favor of Referendum 71, which placed on the ballot the question of repealing the recent law giving all the privileges of marriage to homosexual partners in Washington. ”

Christian Science Monitor: “Killings of Iraqi Christians in the northern city of Mosul have sparked an exodus from the Arab-controlled city to Kurdish areas. The number of Iraqi Christians attacked has spiked in the run-up to elections, scheduled for Sunday.”

The Hill: “Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s (D-Ark.) primary challenge could give Democrats an ideological battle to call their own. Republicans have seen conservative challenges and Tea Party-supported candidates make waves in races across the country. Now Democrats may face a similar situation.”

otect Marriage Washington filed its opening brief today in the United States Supreme Court case of Doe #1 v. Reed.

LA Times: “Nearly half of the Arizona Legislature wants to force President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate to state officials if he runs for re-election.”

A federal district court today extended the principle of the recent Supreme Court case, Citizens United, to enjoin a law barring corporations from making contributions to independent expenditure committees. The court had earlier ruled that contributions to IE PACs may be unlimited.

Washington Post: “Another Superior Court judge has denied a request by same-sex marriage opponents to overturn a D.C. Board of Elections rulings against a referendum on the issue . . . Holeman’s ruling will not be official until Monday, said Austin Nimocks, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund. Once it is, opponents plan to file an immediate appeal.”

Christian Post: “The bullet-riddled body of a 20-year-old Christian student was found on the street of the northern Iraqi city of Mosul Wednesday . . . ‘We don’t want elections, we don’t want representatives, we don’t want our rights, we just want to be alive,’ Baasil Abdul Noor, a priest at Mar Behnam church in Mosul, declared Tuesday . . . ”

StarTribune.com: “Is Minnesota’s law that keeps corporations from spending money in support of political candidates unconstitutional? Officials at the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce believe a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling says it is.”

Tony Mauro writes at Law.com (The National Law Journal): “Critics of the Supreme Court’s January ruling in Citizens United v. FEC are pointing happily to a poll released Wednesday that indicates widespread public opposition to the decision and its green light for more corporate and union expenditures in election campaigns . . . But not everyone reads the Washington Post poll results in the same way . . . ”

Seattle Post-Intelligencer (AP): “The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled an April 28 hearing on whether Washington state can release more than 138,000 names on petitions supporting a domestic partnership referendum.”

C-Span (includes video): “On January 21st, in a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission that corporate funding could not be limited in political campaigns. The Hudson Institute, the Alliance for Justice, the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest, and OMB Watch hosted this discussion on how that ruling will affect nonprofit organizations.”

The Hill: “Indiana required nominating petitions to be filed by noon Tuesday. Bayh announced Monday he would not seek reelection, giving would-be candidates less than 24 hours to get on the ballot.”

SCOTUS Blog reports the following dates on these cases of interest:

Mon. Apr. 19 — Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (08-1371) — right of religious student group to benefits at public college without sacrificing beliefs

Wed. Apr. 28 — Doe No. 1 v. Reed (09-559) — right of ballot measure petition-signers to have their identities kept confidential

The Hill: “Democrats are hoping to fast-track a set of sweeping new campaign finance regulations to prevent the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United decision from affecting the November midterm elections.”

Detroit Free Press: “Warning that escalating campaign contributions in judicial elections will breed arms races between deep-pocket donors, retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor reiterated Tuesday her call for merit selection of state judges.”

James Copland writes at the Wall Street Journal (paid subscription only): “The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to permit independent campaign expenditures by corporations has led to a good deal of hysteria about money and influence in politics. But for those, like me, who view factions as inherent in democracy, the decision was welcome. Labyrinthine campaign-finance laws serve mainly to entrench incumbents and empower those special interests either exempted from regulation (i.e., the institutional media) or best able to navigate the maze of rules. Among the latter group, no lobby has been more empowered than the legal profession—specifically the trial lawyers . . . ”

“Liberty Counsel has filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Mississippi seeking an emergency injunction on behalf of Personhood Mississippi, an organization working to prevent abortions by amending the state Constitution to include the unborn in the definition of a person. The organization has gathered more than 85,000 signatures on a petition in support of the amendment. Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood has interpreted the law to require an earlier deadline that will prevent many signatures on the petition from being counted, which could have the effect of keeping the proposed amendment off the ballot . . . ”

“‘I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company,’ Justice Thomas said. ‘These are corporations.’”

Christian Science Monitor: “A Senate committee on Tuesday discussed how to limit the US Supreme Court campaign-finance ruling that opened elections to corporate ads. One suggestion: a constitutional amendment.”

Morgan Smith writes at The Texas Tribe: “Forget all the rhetoric about the Jacksonian premise of a popularly elected judiciary. The public wants cash out of the courtroom — and that could mean pushing elections out, too . . . ”

The American Constitution Society Blog reports: “The Supreme Court’s recent campaign finance ruling in Citizens United v. FEC has drawn the ire of some on Capitol Hill. That case — and how Congress might blunt its force before the mid-term elections — is the topic of tomorrow’s hearing before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, entitled ‘Corporate America vs. The Voter: Examining the Supreme Court’s Decision to Allow Unlimited Corporate Spending in Elections.’”

LA Times: “When a citizen signs a petition to place an initiative on the ballot, is he or she acting as a voter or as a legislator? How the Supreme Court answers that question will determine whether states can make the names of signers public. It’s a close call, but the court should decide in favor of disclosure.”

Business Week: “A proposed ban on campaign contributions from lobbyists, state contractors and those seeking government subsidies has run into opposition from the American Civil Liberties Union.”

USA Today: “‘Opponents of campaign-finance laws have teed up a series of cases to push the court ever further toward deregulation,’ said Richard Hasen, an expert on election law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. ‘It is paying off.’”

“Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito didn’t like hearing President Barack Obama publicly criticize the high court’s ruling removing corporate campaign spending limits – and he didn’t try to hide it.”

SCOTUS Blog: “Clearly operating on the premise that the Supreme Court last week changed the entire legal landscape for money in politics, the D.C. Circuit Court appeared on Wednesday to be leaning strongly toward giving even more freedom to campaign groups that are set up to operate independently of candidates and parties . . . ”

Wall Street Journal: “. . . Measure 66 increases Oregon’s personal-income-tax rate by two percentage points for households earning over $250,000 a year. Measure 67 calls for an increase in the state’s minimum corporate income tax, currently $10 a year, and imposes a tax on gross revenues for corporations that do not report a profit . . . ”

ACLJ: “The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), focusing on constitutional law, said today it’s ‘outrageous’ that Senator-elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts has not yet been seated – nearly one week after his election victory.”

NY Sun: “The first big impact of the Supreme Court’s decision lifting restrictions on certain corporation campaign spending may be at the American Civil Liberties Union, which, after years of opposing restrictions on free speech grounds, is considering whether to reverse course and endorse government limits on money in politics . . . ”

“The growing strength of the pro-life position in Congress became apparent . . . when a group of 64 Democrats joined most Republicans in the House . . . The vote ‘shocked’ . . . Democratic leaders . . . ”

Politico: “Former GOP Rep. J.D. Hayworth told the Arizona Daily Star that he will be challenging Arizona Sen. John McCain in the Republican primary — one day after announcing he was quitting his conservative talk radio show.”

Laurence Tribe laments the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission at the SCOTUS Blog.

Law.com: “The court voted 4-3 to approve the rules that say campaign donations and other spending by parties do not require judges to step aside from cases.”

“Friday, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear a case that asks it to decide whether the Washington Secretary of State may release the names, addresses, and other personal information of over 138,000 individuals who signed a referendum petition seeking to protect traditional marriage in Washington.”

The Hill: “The Supreme Court’s monumental decision to overturn decades of restrictions on corporate and union money in elections deeply divided Washington interest and legal groups Thursday as supporters hailed the decision as a victory for free speech and opponents predicted a cataclysmic upending of the democratic election process . . . ”

“The Framers understood that in a free Republic the proper response to speech one opposes is speech in opposition, not opposition to speech.”

The Hill: “Democratic leaders will push legislation to limit the impact of Thursday’s Supreme Court decision that lifted restrictions on corporate spending in politics.”

The Election Law Blog reports and links to the ruling in McComish v. Brewer, No. CV-08-1550-PHX-ROS (D. Ariz. Jan. 20, 2010)

“The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.”

SCOTUS Blog: “If the Court is planning to issue the ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (08-205) on Thursday, rather than waiting, say, until Monday, one possible reason is that one of the Justices who will be discussing an opinion from the bench plans to be absent on Monday.”

The Hill: “Senator-elect Scott Brown (R-Mass.) said he’s ready to take his seat ‘without delay.’”

“Republican Scott Brown pulled off one of the biggest upsets in Massachusetts political history tonight, defeating Democrat Martha Coakley to become the state’s next United States senator and potentially derailing President Obama’s hopes for a health care overhaul.”

SCOTUS Blog: “As we have previously noted, the Court will issue opinions tomorrow. The next opinion day is Monday, January 25. After that, the Court is not scheduled to issue opinions until Tuesday, February 23.”

San Diego Union Tribune: “The local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is siding with the county Republican Party in a lawsuit that seeks to eliminate several restrictions on campaign contributions for San Diego elections.”

NY Times: “The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether the First Amendment requires that the names of people who sign ballot-initiative petitions be kept secret . . . The new case arose from an effort to overturn a Washington State domestic partnership law known as the ‘everything but marriage’ act . . . ”

The justices today said they will review a federal appeals court decision that authorized Washington state officials to reveal the identities of 138,000 signers of a petition to place an initiative on the ballot last year.”

Washington Post: “News conferences were scheduled and telephone briefings were penciled in, but Washington advocacy groups were disappointed yet again Wednesday: The Supreme Court did not issue its long-awaited decision on campaign finance laws.”

Massachusetts’s top election official says it could take weeks to certify the results of the upcoming U.S. Senate special election. That delay could let President Barack Obama preserve a key 60th vote for his health care overhaul . . . ”

The Hill: “Democrats and their union allies are pumping resources into Massachusetts in an attempt to save their 60-seat Senate majority.”

Jeremiah G. Dys of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia writes at Journal-News.net: “. . . the 2010 legislative session is set to begin, and our leaders have failed to advance a legitimate reason not to let the people vote on the definition of marriage . . . lawmakers who appear to be holding the democratic process hostage would do well to remember Article II, Section 2-2 of West Virginia’s Constitution, ‘The powers of government reside in all the citizens of the state, and can be rightfully exercised only in accordance with their will and appointment.’ In short, a lawmaker’s answer to this critical question must be, ‘Let the people vote.’”

The Wall Street Journal carries this report noting variations in the polling of the Massachusetts Senate race.

National Review: “The special election for Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat is less than two weeks away. Should Republican Scott Brown win it, it could be all but impossible for Harry Reid to get 60 votes for the current version of Obamacare.”

“Republican leadership, if you are covering up things the public should know, stop or you will lose even more credibility with your base. And press? Do your job. Your duty is not to defend a lifestyle; it is to report the truth.”

James Simpson writes at the American Thinker: “Many are puzzled that Democrats persist in ramming unpopular and destructive legislation down our collective throats with no apparent concern for their plummeting poll numbers . . . But since Democrat politicians rarely do things that will not ultimately benefit themselves, this column asked two weeks ago, “What do they know that we don’t?” We may have found out. It’s called universal voter registration . . . Fund describes the proposal as follows . . . ”

ACLU: “The law requires every candidate for office to sign an oath to abide by the results of a party’s primary and if the candidate loses the party’s primary, bars the candidate from petitioning or campaigning as a write-in candidate for the general election ballot for any office for which the party has a nominee.”

Boston Globe (AP): “A prominent demographer says New Hampshire and Maine aren’t in danger of losing one of their U.S. House seats each based on the Census Bureau’s 2009 population estimates. But the picture may change in another decade.”

“A group of citizens formed RTAO in July 2008 because they wanted to provide accurate and useful information about then-candidate Barack Obama. Specifically, RTAO wanted to broadcast an ad explaining Obama’s support of abortion. RTAO also planned a website and wanted to distribute a letter in order to raise money for the ad. However, if RTAO had proceeded, it was in danger of an enforcement action and civil and criminal penalties by the Federal Election Commission.”

FoxNews: “In the course of less than a week this month, three Democratic representatives announced their resignations: Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn.; Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii; and Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash. That brings the total number of open House seats to 11 for the Democrats . . . ”

CBS: “Candidate Andy Martin launched a radio ad on Monday against Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), the current frontrunner for the GOP nomination in the 2010 Illinois Senate race. The ad calls into question Kirk’s sexuality. Martin claims Kirk “lives in some kind of ‘Animal House’ in Washington with another gay congressman,” reports CBS 2 Chicago.”

Last week, a coalition of plaintiffs asked a federal court to grant a preliminary injunction to keep San Diego from enforcing campaign finance laws that violate the First Amendment.

NY Times: “There are currently at least 445 openly gay and lesbian people holding elected office in the United States, up from 257 eight years ago, according to the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, a political group that supports gay candidates.”

NY Times: “A group of judges, political officials and lawyers, led by the retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, has begun a campaign to persuade states to choose judges on the basis of merit, rather than their ability to win an election.”

WCFCourier.com: “Traditional marriage advocates who demand a vote to amend Iowa’s Constitution plan to leave their calling cards early and often during the 2010 legislative session.”

“Today, Wisconsin Right to Life Political Action Committee filed suit in federal court against Wisconsin’s recently enacted public funding scheme for Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates, asserting it is an unconstitutional infringement of their First Amendment free speech rights.”

Linda Greenhouse has this commentary on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which is currently pending at the U.S. Supreme Court.

KETV.com: “The ACLU said changes to Nebraska law are keeping independent candidates and ballot initiatives off ballots, violating protected political speech.”

Law.com (National Law Journal): “When the Supreme Court on June 29 ordered re-argument in the campaign finance case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the speculation was nearly unanimous on why it took that unusual action . . . On Monday morning, the Court gaveled its final session of 2009 to a close without a decision in Citizens United. Speculation has already intensified over what is causing the delay, and what it could mean.”