Doug Schoen, Democrat Pollster, has this review at Forbes:

“In Who’s Counting?, authors John Fund and Hans Von Spakovsky draw upon hard evidence to make the case that there has been an ongoing crisis of voter fraud in the United States. Put simply, our electoral system is broken in a way that makes it relatively easy to steal elections. . . . Who’s Counting? calls attention to the various problems undermining our election system — from voter fraud to a slipshod system of vote counting — not from a partisan or ideological perspective but from an analytical perspective. The authors offer a hard-headed assessment of the ongoing crisis in election fraud in the United States– “whether it’s phony voter registrations, illegal absentee ballots, vote-buying, shady recounts, or old fashioned ballot-box stuffing” — that is threatening the integrity of our electoral process. . . . Together, Fund and Spakovsky bring decades of sophisticated practice, insight, and historical perspective to this crucial moment in American history, and lay out a novel, clear, and decisive strategy to reinstate the integrity of the American voter registration and election process.”

NPR blog reports that the testimony of the South Carolina elections director Marci Andino has shifted the focus of the South Carolina voter ID trial to the “Reasonable Impediment” affidavit, a sworn statement that voters can use if they were not reasonably able to obtain a photo ID for any multitude of reasons.  The testimony surprised the U.S. District Court and reveals a double standard that DOJ used in reviewing and objecting to the South Carolina voter ID law.  The key paragraph in the post:

Essentially, she said it was up to the voter to determine what was a
“reasonable impediment” and that she was instructing poll managers to
accept the voter’s explanation.

Members of the three-judge panel in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., appeared surprised.

Considering
there’s only a short time before the Nov. 6 election, does that mean
every South Carolina voter without a photo ID would have a “reasonable
impediment” getting one, asked U.S. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh?

“Yes, that’s possible,” Andino replied.

Pressed
by U.S. District Judge John Bates, Andino said that she didn’t think
the law would disenfranchise anyone already legally allowed to vote.

That
might come as a surprise to opponents who argue that tens of thousands
of voters lack the required ID and could have trouble getting one, so
they’ll be unable to vote if the new law is upheld.

While the partisan Department of Justice intentionally ignored this administrative safety net and obstructed to the law’s implementation twice, the clause certainly has the attention of the federal judges.  

Interesting enough, neither of the voter ID laws in Georgia and Virginia, administratively precleared by the Department of Justice, had these safety net features.  DOJ’s flawed analysis is often focused on what demographic group has what forms of ID, not on the system as a whole.  Is there any real difference in the South Carolina photo ID law and the New Hampshire photo ID law (predicted to be precleared by DOJ) as both allow an affidavit to be signed if the voter happens to appear at the polls without a photo ID.

In the midst of a very interesting South Carolina trial over photo ID, at the Republican National Convention, South Carolina Governor Haley stresses the need for photo ID for use in elections.  The video can be found here at minute 3:25.  The photo ID advocacy got one of the largest and prolonged ovations of her speech.

In West Virginia, the feds turn the lead conspirator to testify against others in return for reduced sentencing.

A West Virginia county sheriff who resigned and pleaded guilty to an
election fraud conspiracy deserves a break at his Wednesday sentencing
because of the help he gave to investigators, federal prosecutors say.

The News-Observer reports:  If things go well for Republicans this fall, a voter ID
bill likely will become law next year, House Speaker Thom Tillis told
the North Carolina delegation to the Republican National Convention.

Full story here.

There are so many things that can be said about this loss, but I’ll keep it to just one.  There are fewer and fewer people left who think that Section 5 should survive as reauthorized in 2006.  Here is the opinion.

Odds are in favor of another Texas loss this week on Voter ID.

More coverage of the victory yesterday in Minnesota.

St. Paul Pioneer Press: In two 4-2 rulings Monday, Aug. 27, the court dismissed a challenge to the wording of the proposed voter ID question and rejected Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie’s attempts to rewrite the titles of the voter ID and marriage amendment questions.”

Star Tribune: “Dan McGrath of the Minnesota Majority, which supports the photo ID amendment, said the title Ritchie chose was “deliberately confusing” and “absolutely” would have suppressed the vote for it. Ritchie’s proposed title was: “Changes to in-person & absentee voting & voter registration; provisional ballots.”

St. Cloud Times: The court rejected the liberal groups’ argument that the proposed photo ID amendment was vague and misleading and sided with Republicans who argued that Ritchie was trying to bias voters against both amendments with prejudicial language. The Legislature pushed both proposed amendments through over opposition from Democrats, including Gov. Mark Dayton.

Mankato Free Press: Citing its own precedent, the court found that when the Legislature includes its own title for ballot questions, then it goes beyond the authority of the secretary of state to replace it. The majority opinion said the secretary of state has “no constitutional authority over the form and manner of proposed constitutional amendments,” and directly ordered Ritchie to restore the original wording as set by the Legislature.

DOJ and federal observers are monitoring elections today in Arizona and Alabama.

I’ve been counsel to Minnesota Majority in the Minnesota Supreme Court Case seeking to preserve the right of Minnesota citizens to vote yes or no this fall to adopt Voter ID there.  The ACLU opposed the right of the voters to choose.  Today, we won.

Here is the opinion.  An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution will appear on the ballot this fall exactly in the form that Minnesota Majority wanted.

I find footnote 8 of the Supreme Court opinion particularly interesting, and familiar (we tend to quote majority opinions around here, not dissents.  Maybe at some law schools, dissents are more worthy of citation):


Even though the parties in this case agree that the standard we adopted in Breza controls, the dissents would overrule this precedent. Because they refuse to adhere to our precedent, the dissents must then set forth a new standard. Justice Page’s dissent articulates no discernible standard. Justice Paul Anderson’s dissent discusses the “eye” through which the judiciary should view the ballot question and, based on the strength of yet another dissent, contends that we must view the ballot question with “a gimlet eye.” See infra at D-21 (citing Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 210 (2008) (Souter, J., dissenting)). If we overturned precedent based on nothing other than the desires of individual members of this court, we would become a country not of laws, but of men. John Adams, Novanglus No. 7 (1774), reprinted in 4 The Works of John Adams 99, 106 (Charles Francis Adams ed., 1851) (defining a republic as “a government of laws, and not of men”). But we do not disregard our precedent so easily. Instead, we require “compelling” reasons to depart from precedent. SCI Minn. Funeral Servs., Inc. v. Washburn-McReavy Funeral Corp., 795 N.W.2d 855, 862 (Minn. 2011) (noting that “[w]e are ‘extremely reluctant to overrule our precedent . . .’ and ‘require a compelling reason’ to do so.” (citation omitted)). The dissents articulate no such reasons, and we therefore decline the dissents’ invitation to depart from our precedent.

Minnesota Majority also defeated Secretary of State Mark Ritchie’s attempt to replace the title of the amendment the Legislature passed.  The Supreme Court adopted all of Minnesota Majority’s arguments.