PJ Media: Achtung Baby by U2: Twenty Years in the Rear View Mirror.

Here

Here:  Craven County stepped in line Monday for local legislation requiring photo identification to vote in elections in the county. Commissioners approved a resolution in a 5-2 vote along Republican-Democrat lines that asks the local General Assembly delegation to introduce a local bill fashioned after the state bill vetoed in June.

Agents from the state Attorney General Mike DeWine’s office spent
Monday and Tuesday in Lawrence County continuing the investigation into a
possible attempt of voter fraud in the 2010 general election.

“One
of the agents stopped in my office Tuesday morning and explained they
had 30 agents here,” Sheriff Jeff Lawless said. “They had two 15-man
teams and were here to finalize the investigation into the absentee
ballot issues.”

In early July Ohio Secretary of State John Husted
asked the attorney general and the Lawrence County Prosecutor to
determine if a group of Democrats had attempted the fraud. If so, it
could mean prison time and a fine for anyone convicted of these crimes.

At issue are applications for absentee ballots that were sent to two
post office boxes — 42 were sent to a box in Ironton and 77 sent to a
post office box in Chesapeake during the fall of 2010. In October 2010, a
board of elections employee noticed that the handwriting in the “Send
Ballot To” portion of the applications differed from that in the section
with the voter’s name. The board then contacted 10 voters to see where
they wanted their ballots sent.

More from the article at the Ironton Tribune at the link.

The Hill reports: The House next week will consider a bill that would end taxpayer
financing of presidential campaigns and terminate the Election
Assistance Commission, which was set up in 2002 to improve voting
standards across the country.

The House Rules Committee will meet Tuesday to approve a rule for H.R. 3463, which could lead to floor action as early as Wednesday.

The
legislation, from Rep. Gregg Harper (R-Miss.), essentially combines two
bills that the House considered earlier this year. One of these, which
the House passed in January, would end taxpayer financing of presidential campaigns by eliminating the option taxpayers now have to donate $3 of their tax payments to a presidential campaign fund.

The Federal Election Commission
took a rare step toward pushing back against eroding limits on money in
politics Wednesday, recommending denial of a lawmaker’s request to set
up a fund that could raise unlimited amounts from corporations and
unions.

Court rulings in the past two years have allowed groups to
accept and spend contributions of any amount, a sharp break from dollar
limits in place for candidates, parties and advocacy groups, positing
that the potentially corrupting effect of money on politicians was not
an issue because to accept unlimited funds, groups must be “independent”
from and avoid “coordination” with politicians.

full story at the The Washington Times:

The opinion piece by Hans Spakovsky at The Washington Times begins:

Do laws that require citizens to present valid identification to vote create an undue hardship? Worse, are they racist? Artur Davis used to think so. He represented Alabama’s 7th Congressional District from 2003 to 2011 and was an active member of  Congressional Black Caucus.  He vigorously opposed voter ID laws.

But now he has changed his mind. In a commentary in the Montgomery Advertiser, Mr. Davis says his home state of Alabama “did the right thing” in passing a voter
ID law and admits, “I wish I had gotten it right when I was in
political office.”

The rest of the story at the link.

That’s the question at the link.  Local Election officials discuss extremely low turnout and the cost of hosting an election at polling places.

Ouch.  In San Francisco, an analysis of the recent mayoral election reveals the limits of the voting system.

At the link, you can find the entire opinion of the majority opinion and dissent of the three-judge panel with the interim and alternate plan.  The dissent of Judge Jerry E. Smith is scathing and will undoubtedly serve as the basis for Texas seeking Supreme Court intervention for a fairer interim plan.  It is apparent that the three-judge panel simply accepted every assertion the plaintiff’s made without any critical eye on the actual caselaw.  The online congressional newspaper, The Hill pointed out the Democrat glee and called this ruling: the interim Texas redistricting plan that could bring back Speaker Pelosi.  These interim maps could not have dreamed of or drawn to better specifications by the Democrats or their liberal allies. 

In his dissent, Judge Smith sounds the alarm of an activist court run amok:

“The judges in the majority, with the purest of intentions, have instead produced a runaway plan that imposes an extreme redistricting scheme for the Texas House of Representatives, untethered to the applicable caselaw.  The practical effect is to award judgment on the pleadings in favor of one side — a slam duck victory for the plaintiffs — at the expense of the redistricting plan by the Legislature, before key decisions have been made on binding questions of law. Because this is a grave error at the preliminary interim stage of the redistricting process, I respectfully dissent.”  “Unless the Supreme Court enters the fray at once to force a stay or a revision, this litigation, is for most practical purposes, at and end.” 

Criticisms of the majority

“The interim phase is not the time for this court to impose the radical alterations in the Texas political landscape that the majority has now mandated.  In almost every instance in which one or more plaintiffs ask for a substantial change that would upset a legislative choice, the majority has elected to order that revision, immediately, in the interim redistricting plans that are effective for the 2012 elections.”

“The majority’s general approach of maximizing the drawing of minority opportunity districts…”

“Not content, however, with making these justified changes, the majority ventures into other areas of the State and sitting as a mini-legislature, engrafts it policy preferences statewide..” 

Judge Smith summarizes and concludes:

“In summary, it is difficult to overstate what the majority – with the purest of intentions – has wrought in ordaining its ambitious scheme.  Its plan is far-reaching and extreme.  The plan expands the role of a three-judge interim court well beyond what is legal, practical, or fair.“

“Because the conscientious and well-intentioned majority has ventured far beyond its proper role in announcing an interim redistricting plan for the Texas House of Representatives, I respectfully dissent, and I offer this alternate plan in response, in the hope that on appeal, the Supreme Court will provide appropriate and immediate guidance.”