“I am sorry for the people that can’t let my past go,” she wrote on her public Facebook page.

I suppose some let the past go easier than others.

In addition to the conspiracy to commit fraud charges, Laughton was charged with slashing the tires of a neighbor’s car in 2006. The same year, Laughton reportedly admitted that she faked illness to gain an ambulance ride for herself and her now ex-wife, Lisa Laughton, also a Gate City selectman, from Weirs Beach back toward their home.

Laughton’s felony conviction stems from a 2007 incident, the Laconia Daily Sun reported Saturday, when Laughton and her ex-wife reportedly opened a credit card in a former neighbor’s name, using it to purchase electronics and pay bills.

Laughton was indicted on one felony count of conspiracy to commit fraudulent use of a credit card; one count of conspiracy to commit identity fraud; and one count of falsifying physical evidence, for disposing two computers, two cellphones and a printer after learning of the police investigation.

“I am sorry for the people that can’t let my past go,” she wrote on her public Facebook page.

I suppose some let the past go easier than others.

In addition to the conspiracy to commit fraud charges, Laughton was charged with slashing the tires of a neighbor’s car in 2006. The same year, Laughton reportedly admitted that she faked illness to gain an ambulance ride for herself and her now ex-wife, Lisa Laughton, also a Gate City selectman, from Weirs Beach back toward their home.

Laughton’s felony conviction stems from a 2007 incident, the Laconia Daily Sun reported Saturday, when Laughton and her ex-wife reportedly opened a credit card in a former neighbor’s name, using it to purchase electronics and pay bills.

Laughton was indicted on one felony count of conspiracy to commit fraudulent use of a credit card; one count of conspiracy to commit identity fraud; and one count of falsifying physical evidence, for disposing two computers, two cellphones and a printer after learning of the police investigation.

Next up on the agenda:  “Kobach said the bigger issue that needs to be addressed was the counties where there are more registered voters than eligible voting-age population.”

More here.

*The AP story also states that the referenced 717 provisional ballots represent .6 percent of the 1.15 million votes cast.  It’s unclear whether this mistake is attributable to Kobach or the AP reporter, but the correct figure is .06 percent.

Next up on the agenda:  “Kobach said the bigger issue that needs to be addressed was the counties where there are more registered voters than eligible voting-age population.”

More here.

*The AP story also states that the referenced 717 provisional ballots represent .6 percent of the 1.15 million votes cast.  It’s unclear whether this mistake is attributable to Kobach or the AP reporter, but the correct figure is .06 percent.

Now, the push is on from the NAACP, the American Civil Liberties Union and other civic groups to permanently defeat the new law — which would require voters to show photo ID at the polls beginning next year.

“We view it as a poll tax,” said Jerome Mondesire, the president of the state NAACP conference, who said the organization is gearing up to reverse the law. If the group loses, it will appeal as far as it can — perhaps even to the U.S. Supreme Court, he said.

Never mind that the Supreme Court has already ruled that a provided-for-free Voter ID is not a poll tax.  The anti-ID crowd remains undeterred.

Now, the push is on from the NAACP, the American Civil Liberties Union and other civic groups to permanently defeat the new law — which would require voters to show photo ID at the polls beginning next year.

“We view it as a poll tax,” said Jerome Mondesire, the president of the state NAACP conference, who said the organization is gearing up to reverse the law. If the group loses, it will appeal as far as it can — perhaps even to the U.S. Supreme Court, he said.

Never mind that the Supreme Court has already ruled that a provided-for-free Voter ID is not a poll tax.  The anti-ID crowd remains undeterred.

CORRECTION, Nov. 21, 2012, 8:50 p.m. PT: Updated to clarify that 5% of provisional voters, not all voters, cast provisional ballots due to the new ID requirement.

We email subscribers who don’t read the Blog missed the correction.  (And still uncorrected is the bill number, which is 1337, not 1377.) 

But I can now update to clarify that, of the options previously posited, Project Vote’s sloppy reporting apparently was a simple mistake and not a deliberate misrepresentation on the part of Ms. Lee.

At issue now is whether the correct numbers, evidencing a miniscule .015 percent of Virginia voters casting provisional ballots due to Voter ID requirements, will persuade anti-ID groups including Project Vote to reconsider their opposition. 

CORRECTION, Nov. 21, 2012, 8:50 p.m. PT: Updated to clarify that 5% of provisional voters, not all voters, cast provisional ballots due to the new ID requirement.

We email subscribers who don’t read the Blog missed the correction.  (And still uncorrected is the bill number, which is 1337, not 1377.) 

But I can now update to clarify that, of the options previously posited, Project Vote’s sloppy reporting apparently was a simple mistake and not a deliberate misrepresentation on the part of Ms. Lee.

At issue now is whether the correct numbers, evidencing a miniscule .015 percent of Virginia voters casting provisional ballots due to Voter ID requirements, will persuade anti-ID groups including Project Vote to reconsider their opposition.