The latest from Jennifer Rubin at Commentary.

The press release is here.   A portion:

LDF’s comprehensive program also includes a manual providing  information for community members, activists and policy makers.  The manual provides the legal and policy framework for redistricting, and outlines how communities can participate in the redistricting process, keep the line drawers accountable and help ensure that the voting strength of minority communities is not unjustly weakened.  The manual, which was written in conjunction with the Asian American Justice Center and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, is available on LDF’s website at: http://naacpldf.org/publication/impact-redistricting-your-community-2010-guide-redistricting.

Tuesday’s Washington Times editorial the Regularity of Voting Irregularities.  A portion:

The Connecticut governor’s race was especially bollixed up. Vote counts switched back and forth from the same jurisdictions, hundreds of ballots were “found” lying around in unguarded bags, and a local news station ran footage of a poll watcher being escorted from the premises for complaining about such slipshod procedures.

Votes materialized in a North Carolina congressional race that seems headed for a recount. In Houston, True the Vote is compiling a report on improper activity that includes widespread campaigning and pressuring of voters – or illegally prompting voters to cast straight Democratic tickets – at polling locations. Also in Houston, an elections “presiding judge” had an “alternate judge” forcibly removed for complaining that five New Black Panthers were openly electioneering within the polling place.

A manager with ACORN enters a guilty plea to voter fraud arising out of fraudulent voter registrations in 2008.  More at the LA Times.

” A former supervisor for the defunct political advocacy group ACORN has agreed to a plea deal in a case alleging that canvassers were illegally paid to register Nevada voters during the 2008 presidential campaign.”

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.

Captain Sam Wright writes  at Pajamas Media that one solution to the military voting mess of 2010 is to amend the statute to include a private right of action.  That way, soldiers and sailors won’t have to rely on the Department of Justice to bring timely lawsuits.  That seems to be a view gaining traction in Congress.  Multiple committees (and subs) are looking toward hearings about the 2010 mess  that was supposed to cure the 2008 mess.

The problem with the law, as written, is that it gives the Eric Holder Justice Department monopoly authority over protecting military voters.  That doesn’t work for a variety of reasons about which Congress will be fully informed.  And surely the DOJ wouldn’t oppose expanding the rights of military voters to bring their own lawsuits, would they?  Wait and see. If they do, they will do so at their own public relations peril.  It would be smarter not to object lest the details of the 2010 mess be revealed even more vividly.  January will be here before we know it.

Talk about insult on injury.  The same night Iowa voters rejected Secretary of State Michael Mauro, burglars decided to ransack his house. More at the Des Moines Register.

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.