To read the entire article, go to link.  A few highlights quoting Larry Sabato on the national perspective:

Larry Sabato, a political analyst and director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, called the gradual demise “a major problem for Democrats,” and one not confined to Virginia.

Were you readers expecting legal analysis and reasoned arguments on your Sunday pages? 

Don’t hold you breath.  To read the most simplistic and ignorant editorial in years on the current state of campaign finance laws, go the blogosphere New York Times Sunday Opinion page and read the editorial entitled “The Campaign Jungle” to get your fill of hope fear and change corruption.

So you ask, why would ELC send you to an opinion piece with so much to look forward to?  Besides the importance of understanding the ignorance of self-proclaimed journalists residing in Manhattan, the last paragraph is notably scary as it is indicative what depths the reformers would lower themselves to manipulate laws (even criminal) to suppress your free speech. 

“The time has come for the Department of Justice to step in and pursue criminal complaints against the candidate PACs. Limits on spending used to prevent donations from becoming outright bribes, but now the limits are gone, and the path to corruption is clear.”

There you have it. The New York Times editorial team suggests the Obama Justice Department threaten criminal prosecution against campaigns and candidates where the Federal Election Commission (FEC) hasn’t determined the campaign speech in question to be either violative of law or regulation.  In the name of combating imaginary corruption, the New York Times is trying to the chill the campaign speech of political committees.  

Happy Belated Halloween.  

Allowing overseas military to participate in Caucus events may be gathering some steam. 

Here.

A must-see video at the link.  These series of questions were asked at an oversight hearing of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and Representative Rokita does a great job detailing why the FEC bureaucracy needs to be tamed.  In this most important area of free speech and campaign spending, is too much discretion to prosecute based on secret standards being given to unaccountable regulators? 

Rokita asks the question:  Are we a nation of laws or a nation of men?

At the link, we find that despite the veto by the Democratic Governor of North Carolina, the proponents of voter ID will not give up so easy, now turning to grassroots politics at the local level to implement the law.  It is just a matter of time. 

The Davidson County Board of Commissioners unanimously approved a resolution Tuesday night to introduce a bill requiring voter identification prior to voting in local elections.

Commissioner Larry Potts, who serves as vice chairman of an all-Republican board, introduced the resolution in light of a recent veto by Gov. Beverly Perdue of House Bill 351, which was adopted by both houses in an effort to ensure the accuracy of elections. Potts is not satisfied with the decision of the governor and said he wishes to see Davidson County protected from fraudulent voters.

@TheRepLawyer: For those Twitter challenged, below is the tweeting transcript of the voter ID panel at the Federalist Society Convention.  Remember, the tweets are in reverse order.  The panelists included: Hans von Spakovsky, John Fund, Spencer Overton and Daniel Tokaji.

at USA Today, “Mississippi has joined the growing number of states adopting tougher voter ID laws, a trend that promises to fuel an intense battle over how such laws may affect voter turnout in the 2012 elections. “It’s boiling over,” said Jennie Bowser, a senior election policy analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures. “People on both sides of the aisle are very protective of elections. They regard it as the cornerstone of American democracy. ”  

and this: Democrats have called for a hearing on whether the state laws are constitutional and violate the spirit of the Voting Rights Act. They are considering introducing legislation to nullify the impact of the state laws, but acknowledge such an effort would almost certainly be doomed in the Republican-controlled House. “We don’t delude ourselves,” said Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House minority whip. “I’m not sure we’ll be successful with legislation, but legislation is certainly an option.”

Carefully note that Democrats are not calling a hearing to say that photo identification laws actually violate the Voting Rights Act, just the spirit of the Act.  This is a result of previous litigation in states that has repeatedly resulted in Court’s ruling that the laws don’t normally, much less automatically, violate the Voting Right Act.  This shift explains why Democrats are calling for Federal legislation to expressly nullify the wide variety of state identification laws enacted over the past decade.  Why?  Because the Supreme Court has ruled that photo id laws are indeed constitutional and acceptable for election administration purposes; therefore, the only remaining avenue for Democrats to overrule the majority of Americans in favor of such laws and force a wholesale federal ban down the throats of all states. 

As the enforcement agency of the Executive Branch, the DOJ can only stand in the way of photo ID laws for so long.  Their job is to follow and enforce laws (even ones they don’t like) and not to manipulate the law for political ends.  The only recourse for Democrats is to pass legislation at the state and federal level reversing this trend.  Unfortunately, the mere fact they bring up this issue may now prompt Republicans to consider federal laws requiring identification at the polls.  

  . . . if you have to ask . . .

 Washington Post.  I don’t have much confidence in the fate of this lawsuit.

Releasing an apology letter addressed the family of murdered ATF agent Brian Terry to the media before the family receives it.  More at PJ Tatler.