Indiana loses on standing and notice claims. A win for the plaintiffs in True the Vote/Judicial Watch v. Indiana. You can read the federal court ruling here.
• The court affirmed both Judicial Watch’s and True the Vote’s theories of standing (pp. 5-9). The court even added a piece at footnote 6 finding Judicial Watch satisfied associational standing, which Indiana did not even argue.
• The standard NVRA Seciton 8 notice issued by Judicial Watch and TTV was found to satisfy the statute (bad news for other non-compliant notice recipients). True the Vote was found to be a proper party/
• The Secretary of State of Indiana is not dismissed and continues to be a party to this action (pp. 9-10).
• The NVRA records requirement at page 6 – “With regard to the Records Claim, the Defendants do not—and cannot—assert that the Plaintiffs lack standing. See, e.g., Federal Election Comm’n v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 24-25 (finding standing to bring suit to redress an “informational injury . . . directly related to voting, the most basic of political rights…”
• “The Defendants also argue that the Letter fails to provide sufficient details about any alleged violation of the NVRA to satisfy the notice requirement. It is not surprising that the Letter does not contain any detailed allegations, inasmuch as the NVRA provision at issue does not contain any detailed requirements; it simply requires “reasonable effort” on the part of the State. The Letter sets forth the reasons for Judicial Watch’s conclusion that the Defendants have failed to comply with that general requirement. The Court believes that was sufficient to satisfy the notice requirement of the NVRA with regard to Judicial Watch’s claims.”
A good ruling for election integrity. I expect this will sharpen the case against non-compliant states and counties.
NAACP “Help” Violates Ohio Election Law, Disenfranchises Voters
Ms. Moore said she delivered 19 absentee voter ballots from inmates at the Corrections Center of Northwest Ohio to the Lucas County Board of Elections, but said she did not know it was illegal. State law prohibits anyone but the voter or a relative from hand-delivering an absentee ballot. As one member of the elections board noted, “ironically, it was Ms. Moore who disenfranchised the CCNO voters.” Ohio wasn’t the only place where NAACP “help” violated state election laws. In Harris County, Texas, three NAACP members stayed inside an Early Voting poll location for several hours, selecting people out of line to vote ahead of others, an illegal activity they openly acknowledge. Houston NAACP Chapter President Rev. Reginald Liley claimed they “just wanted to help and did not, to his knowledge, break any rules,” but Harris County’s chief elections official confirmed their actions were “improper and illegal.” “Ignorance of the law excuses no man; not that all men know the law, but because it is an excuse every man will plead, and no man can tell how to confute him.” -John Selden
As the Ohio NAACP coordinator for northwest Ohio and past president of the Toledo chapter of the NAACP, perhaps WilliAnn Moore should have known better. The Toledo Blade reports:
Voter ID in Alaska
Arrival expected.
Rubio and Blount’s UOCAVA Amendments
Link here.
“Electing to Fight Fraud” in Georgia
“Right here in Augusta – which boasts one of the finest election directors around, Lynn Bailey – an Augusta Chronicle investigation recently unearthed several dozen voters whose home addresses were actually empty lots and abandoned houses across the county. The spot check, done by comparing voter registration information to county property records and Licensing and Inspection dates on abandoned properties, illustrates that voter fraud may be occurring even in areas with the most trustworthy election officials. Imagine if rank partisans were, instead, in control of the election machinery… “Voter ‘suppression’ can no longer be considered a legitimate concern. There were no confirmations of it before or after the election – and fears that Barack Obama might be turned out of office because minorities weren’t allowed to vote were obvious puffery. Fact is, our problem is just the opposite: There aren’t enough controls on the system to prevent votes being cast that shouldn’t be.”
“It’s quite possible that, in our zeal to make voting convenient, we’ve made it far too convenient,” according to the Augusta Chronicle:
SOS Gessler Stops in the Springs
Colorado Springs Gazette. “Records were wrong, and it was embarrassing for us,” Macomber told Gessler. “We lose credibility when we walk up to a door and say, ‘Hi, Mrs. Smith,’ and it’s Mrs. Jones.” Gessler agreed that Colorado’s voter rolls are “sloppy,” but said the problem is that the only way voters are removed from the rolls is if his office gets returned mail from the address, or is directly notified that a person has moved.”
“Division leader Ann Macomber, 65, said that roughly a third of the addresses and names in the voter registration lists she got were incorrect.
And Mike Maday, a Democrat, took issue with any effort of the SOS to meet with people interested in election integrity and fixing the voter rolls, not a good place for Democrats to be.
Wall Street Journal: Voter “Suppression” Debunked
More: Opponents make two claims: that, as is “seen by many” according to TPM, such laws are intended to suppress minority voting; and that such laws have the effect of suppressing minority voting. Hardy clearly agrees with the first claim, inasmuch as she characterizes voter ID requirements as an “assault on our ability to vote.” She provides no evidence for this claim, or at least none that TPM finds worth reporting, but then her audience probably didn’t need to be convinced.
Replacing Jim Demint and SC Voter ID
National Review: DOJ “Misbehavior” Called Out in NH Bailout
National Review link:
“The Center for Individual Rights filed a motion to intervene on Wednesday on behalf of a resident of the state who objects to the bailout. The motion reminds the court that it cannot grant New Hampshire’s request because the state “admits on the face of the complaint that it does not satisfy the statutory criteria for a bailout.” The motion also brings to the attention of the court the language cited in the NRO article from the Shelby County case, where the D.C. Circuit found Shelby County ineligible for a bailout due to the county’s failure to submit one voting change, much less the numerous unsubmitted voting changes of New Hampshire.
This motion to intervene by a New Hampshire resident and voter, if it is granted, will make it much more difficult for the court to ignore New Hampshire’s noncompliance and the Justice Department’s misbehavior in the case. “
National Review: DOJ “Misbehavior” Called Out in NH Bailout
National Review link:
“The Center for Individual Rights filed a motion to intervene on Wednesday on behalf of a resident of the state who objects to the bailout. The motion reminds the court that it cannot grant New Hampshire’s request because the state “admits on the face of the complaint that it does not satisfy the statutory criteria for a bailout.” The motion also brings to the attention of the court the language cited in the NRO article from the Shelby County case, where the D.C. Circuit found Shelby County ineligible for a bailout due to the county’s failure to submit one voting change, much less the numerous unsubmitted voting changes of New Hampshire.
This motion to intervene by a New Hampshire resident and voter, if it is granted, will make it much more difficult for the court to ignore New Hampshire’s noncompliance and the Justice Department’s misbehavior in the case. “