More “nonexistent” voter fraud, from the home of LBJ’s Box 13:
“Two Jim Wells County men were arrested for alleged voter fraud after the Attorney General's office found they were not eligible to vote.”
The two were charged with illegally voting in Texas’ May 2012 Primary Election, “an election they knew they were not eligible to vote,” a second degree felony.
... << MORE >>
... << MORE >>With 34 states now requiring some form of identification at the polls, former president Bill Clinton and civil rights leader Andrew Young on Wednesday endorsed the idea of adding photos to Social Security cards as a way to prevent voter suppression.The two made the recommendation in separate appearances at a conference at the Lyndon B. Johnson presidential library, which is commemorating the 50th anniversary of the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
... << MORE >>Campaign finance law has indeed become a bewildering array of arcane, seemingly arbitrary distinctions and lines. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, I was one of a group of former FEC commissioners who attempted, in an amicus brief, to impress on the court the exceedingly complex nature of the law. Among other things, we noted that campaign finance regulations imposed unique rules on 71 different types of speakers, for 33 different types of campaign-related speech.Much of this complexity has come about from the interplay of courts and regulators (by whom I mean not only those in government who do the regulating, but the substantial complex of lobbying organizations and foundations that promote further regulation of campaign speech). Regulators pass laws that are so broad as to offend most any normal interpretation of the First Amendment. The Courts attempt to confine those laws to a limited space, leaving ample alternative avenues for free speech. The regulators then pass laws attempting to block off those alternative avenues, and another go around begins.
... << MORE >>To the Editor:Our Federal Election Commission colleague Ann M. Ravel would rather grandstand than follow the law and judicial precedent. We enforce the law as written by Congress and construed by the courts, not as our colleague and her “reformer” allies wish it were.She disparages the federal courts as “a rubber-stamp approval of inaction” and essentially encourages them to disregard our governing statute and decades-old legal precedent. By recklessly accusing the courts and us of “betraying the public” and “putting our democracy in jeopardy,” our colleague is actually the one encouraging the commissioners “not to cooperate with one another” and paralyzing the F.E.C.As for us, we will continue to follow the Supreme Court’s guidance: “Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor.”LEE E. GOODMANCAROLINE C. HUNTERMATTHEW S. PETERSENWashington, April 7, 2014