I will be speaking at the Marquette University School of Law at noon on Tuesday about election law, redistricting and the Voting Rights Act.  Light blogging on Tuesday.

State legislatures will oversee redistricting in 2011.   The tsunami last Tuesday put Republicans in more state chambers than at any time since 1928.  More here.

Answer: No.  More at Pajamas Media.

I’ve been asked by numerous quarters whether I think Senator Harry Reid engaged in voter intimidation by having casinos send letters and emails to employees urging support for Reid. This wasn’t voter intimidation. Reid might have survived through all sorts of shenanigans, but intimidation wasn’t one of them.

Voter intimidation is a term of art. It doesn’t mean a voter was annoyed or unsettled. It doesn’t mean pressure was put on a voter to act a certain way. Federal laws prohibiting voter intimidation rely on an objective standard. Simply, would a reasonable person find the behavior a threat that might reasonably result in bodily harm or other imminent harm? A letter from an employer or union urging a vote for a particular candidate does not fall into this category.

Of course, the content of the letter may make a difference. If the letter says: “If you don’t vote for Harry Reid, the casino may burn down your house,” that’s another matter. But that isn’t what the letters said.

Indeed, it may even be protected political speech. Why shouldn’t an employer be allowed to communicate with employees about an election? Why shouldn’t an employer be allowed to communicate objective truth to employees about what the outcome of the election might mean for their business? Hardly intimidation, such communications are protected by the First Amendment and would serve the important purpose of informing an employee about what is best for the company, and therefore for the employee’s employment.

The rest of the article here.

The story is here. 

“On Sept. 9, Irving Anders obtained and filled out an absentee ballot from Prairie du Chien Township in Crawford County; four days later on Sept. 13, he obtained and filled out an absentee ballot from Millville Township in Grant County.” 

I don’t know if he was registered twice in the state or whether he was a same day registrant.  Either way, it isn’t good.  If the former, it shows registration fraud breeds voter fraud.  If the latter, another reason to question same day registration.

The law and law abiding meet up with the lawless in Houston Texas.  Guess who wins?  In this instance, the Alternate Judge (video below) says she was enforcing rules against illegal electioneering inside the 100 foot radius.  She enforced the laws against using cell phones and campaigning or being inside the prohibited zones by the New Black Panthers.  After complaints about her from the head of the New Black Panthers, she was removed from the polls by the Presiding Judge who then called the police. 

As I noted earlier at Pajamas Media, Quanell X, the head of the Houston New Black Panther Party, was entering polling places illegally in Houston in violation of Texas law.  He had with him a squad of at least 5 other Panthers.  Texas law strictly prohibits unqualified individuals from being present.  Credentials are necessary to be inside the polls if you are not voting.

After the New Black Panthers would appear, the Presiding Judge made a number of decisions resulting in the removal of either poll watches or Alternate Judges.  Later, on a Houston radio station, Quanell X bragged that he had people removed from the polls. 

Data is being gathered about this behavior.  But Texas GOP Vote has this updated report.   Here is the Pajamas Media story  with video from one of the individuals removed describing what happened.

Latest at Pajama’s Media: Houston Texas New Black Panther groups enter polling places illegally and give instructions to election officials.  Poll watchers questioning the behavior are ejected or denied readmittance.  Full story and video here.

Story  – group wears “Please ID buttons” to polls.  This button seeks to undermine the argument that being asked for identification is a painful experience.   It ends up in a court fight that results in the buttons being banned.  After that, the button proponents hint they will disobey a court order and wear them anyway.

My take: this is a bad idea in a nation governed by law, something I suspect the button wearer’s support.  Refusing to obey a court order would tear at the fabric of law that we all rely on to ensure the rule of law protects us all.  Consider whether we would want King Samir Shabazz to ignore the court order prohibiting him from showing up with a nightstick inside the city of Philadelphia.  Such behavior encourages more lawlessness.  So lets hope that the response is to appeal the ruling rather than violate the ruling.

Assisted living allegations.  An affidavit saying mentally ill patients were voted illegally.