John Hinderaker at Powerline.

Clarion Ledger opinion page in Jackson MS.

At PJ Rule of Law.  “Who’s Counting promises to pick up on some of the fine work von Spakovsky has done here at PJ Media, cataloging, for example, the radicals in the DOJ Civil Rights Division who will be enforcing federal election laws this fall in ways to help ensure President Obama’s reelection. Ironically, two books from voter fraud deniers will be released almost simultaneously. Not surprisingly, the pair of voter fraud denying books are being released on little-read academic presses.”

The approaching gubernatorial race in Wisconsin is arguably the biggest election in that state in more than a decade.  It is certainly the highest profile recall election in the United States since California recalled a sitting Governor.  Politico calls the race Armageddon. 

However, many overseas and military voters will be effectively disenfranchised from participating due to a failure of election officials to plan for the short span of time between the recall primary and the recall general election.  It also involves a questionable interpretation of how state law and the Wisconsin constitution interact together on the schedule of the recall election.  The bottom line is that it appears overseas military voters will be given only 2 weeks to receive and return their ballots to be counted.  With the warp speed in which the postal system works, good luck with that.

…Dane County Deputy Clerk Judy Nowak told the WisconsinReporter that “It’s a two-week window of opportunity” to vote absentee.

The WisconsinReporter more specifically lays out the problem:

State law requires that absentee ballots be available 21 days before an election. By the calendar, absentee ballots, then, should be available Monday for the June 5 recall elections involving Gov. Scott Walker, Lt Gov Rebecca Kleefisch and four GOP state senators.  But in reality, absentee ballots for the recalls won’t be available until at least May 18, after the GAB, which oversees the state’s elections, certifies the results from Tuesday’s primaries.  The GAB plans to certify Tuesday’s recall primaries at 5 p.m. May 17, allowing the required time for local canvassing boards to tally all the votes, including late-arriving absentee ballots and provisional ballots, and allowing for a three-day period during which candidates may request a recount.

A bipartisan group of legislators have intervened in the litigation brought by the ACLU to support the Voter ID law.

For Spanish language ballots.  More here.

Hurrah, now we’ve got a sales ranking at Tova Wang’s book.  Stay tuned for her sales to be added to the widget once Novel Rank can digest her data.

Hurrah, now we’ve got a sales ranking at Tova Wang’s book.  Stay tuned for her sales to be added to the widget once Novel Rank can digest her data.

“Kincannon also claimed that military voters should get ballots 45 days before an election in order to return them in time.  State Election Commission Attorney Elizabeth Crum said that rule only applied to federal races.”

This is the latest in a series of questionable positions taken by the State Election Commission.  The previous ones include providing bad data to the Justice Department on the South Carolina Voter ID submission.  As I recall, South Carolina also entered into a consent decree on military voting, and the decree was precleared.  Any deviation from that decree would constitute a change requiring preclearance.  From the news report, it is difficult to tell how this case was lost, though it appears to be on standing.  Yet standing is something that should not have been problematic. Perhaps someone can email the opinion for us to post. 

“Kincannon also claimed that military voters should get ballots 45 days before an election in order to return them in time.  State Election Commission Attorney Elizabeth Crum said that rule only applied to federal races.”

This is the latest in a series of questionable positions taken by the State Election Commission.  The previous ones include providing bad data to the Justice Department on the South Carolina Voter ID submission.  As I recall, South Carolina also entered into a consent decree on military voting, and the decree was precleared.  Any deviation from that decree would constitute a change requiring preclearance.  From the news report, it is difficult to tell how this case was lost, though it appears to be on standing.  Yet standing is something that should not have been problematic. Perhaps someone can email the opinion for us to post.