A letter to the editor from Lake Hubert in the Brainerd Dispatch.

Top of the morning.  Top of the page at PJM:  the DOJ Civil Rights Division has found a way to politicize the Freedom of Information Act.  Friends get same day service, certain others wait months.  So much for transparency.  I’ll be discussing this story in greater detail at CPAC.  Full story here.
My PJTV interview is here.

This one invovles voting early and then going to the polls on election day and voting again.  More at WOWT.com.

I am told by noted campaign finance lawyers that Don McGahn’s Statement of Reasons on the case In re: Softer Voices is one of the best pieces of legal work in campaign finance that has been done in some time.  This blog stays far away from campaign finance issues and instead focuses on civil rights and election mechanics. But for this, an exception is in order.

From Kansas.

Alas, the defense opens.

KSN.com.    Opponents like Kari Ann Rinker of the Kansas National Organization for Women (photo above) argue that voter ID will depress turnout.  The article makes no mention of any social science data offered to support the proposition that the enactment of voter ID results in lower turnout.  They offer some nationwide statistics on rates of photo identification ownership, but do not offer data on the relevant question: does enactment of voter Id decrease turnout?

They might turn to Georgia in 2006 or 2008 for some raw data on turnout rates after the passage of voter ID. Indiana might also offer some useful data.

No need to hunt and peck around the internet with bad Google searches.  You can go straight to all the articles about UOCAVA here and also at Pajamas Media here.   That ought to help you prepare for Tuesday’s hearing.

Not election related, but a great story.

Tenn. Public Radio.

Chattanooga Times.