I was on the Rob Schilling show at WINA-AM  in Charlottesville yesterday.  The podcast is here.  It’s at the bottom of the hour though I can’t seem to find a scroll forward.  The discussion ends up being about Nancy Rodriguez at the bottom of the hour.  In particular, about Rodriguez altering the rules regarding residency in 2008 to open the flood gates for out of state college student voting.  It also covers how Nancy Rodriguez continued to aggressively defend a case brought on behalf of military voters.  The aggressive defense worked to the detriment of military voters.  She didn’t need to fight back so aggressively, but she did.  This lawsuit came after Virginia failed to mail military ballots in time to soldiers overseas.  After they were sued, Nancy fought back and defended the failure to mail ballots.   Nancy Rodriguez refused to settle the case on terms favorable to military voters and fought back in court well after the election. 

Out of state college students? No problem.  A Marine in Iraq?  Not so much.   The good news is that Rodrigues will be replaced in January 2011.  It is a shame she wasn’t replaced in January 2010.

Quin Hillyer has this piece  at the American Spectator.  He managed to interview Laughlin McDonald of the ACLU about the New Black Panther dismissal as well as a range of others, including this comment on Eric Holder:

“The politically moderate blogger and law professor Ann Althouse, who voted for Barack Obama, wrote a reaction to a November 2009 Holder testimony before the Senate that could stand as a far broader condemnation of his qualities. Holder, she wrote, ‘is utterly pathetic here. Either he knows damned well what he’s doing and he’s lying or he’s outrageously unqualified for his job.'”

“Even Martin Peretz, editor in chief of the liberal New Republic and staunch Al Gore supporter, had seen enough of Eric Holder’s embarrassing and abusive tenure, for multiple reasons. ‘Poor Eric Holder,’ Peretz wrote as the lead sentence of his blog, The Spine, that day. ‘The fact is that he is none too smart…and none too versed in constitutional issues.’

And none too honest, either. But profoundly dangerous to the cause of equal justice.”

Election Law Center has obtained the flyer for the Corrine Brown Get Out the Vote free meal.  As the flyer above states, “the first 350 to vote at the library will receive a complimentary coupon for lunch at Mama Nem’s Soul Food Restaurant.”  This says the free meal is only available to those who vote.

We previously asked whether the Justice Department will be sending a letter like it sent to the WWE for having a tshirt giveaway, regardless of whether or not the person voted, on a first come first served basis.  Fox has more  on the WWE letter.  We will gladly post the DOJ letter to Corrine Brown if someone can send it to us, if it exists.  Of course Linda McMahon is running as a Republican with her WWE connections on full display.  Brown is running as Democrat.  You’d think 350 free lunches at Mama Nems would cost a good bit more than a few hundred WWE tshirts. 

If anyone has a copy of the DOJ letter sent to Rep. Corrine Brown, we will gladly post it.

We reported below that the wrestling gang at WWE got a letter from DOJ because they are giving away tshirts on a first come first served basis.  DOJ sent this letter gently reminding the WWE about federal criminal laws. 

U.S. Representative Corrine Brown has offered a coupon to a free meal at a diner to the first 350 voters to vote.  I wonder if Rep. Brown will get a letter from Mr. Pilger.

This blog incorrectly characterizes the Alaska lawsuit as moot.  It isn’t.  The Section 5 claim may be, but the Section 2 claim certainly is not. That doesn’t mean that the case is perhaps dismissed by the plaintiffs, but the Section 2 claims are not moot.

The Justice Department has injected itself in the Connecticut race for US Senate.  Here is the letter.

This letter has caused concern  among unpredictable quarters.  The Professor wrote “So I was surprised when DOJ sent this warning letter to WWE. I wonder whether others have gotten such a letter.”
 
Normally, a law enforcement agency, especially the DOJ, would not inject it self with criminal threats so close to the election.  Would welcome other thoughts on this one. 

That sure didn’t take long.  The Department of Justice precleared the changes implemented by the Alaska Supreme Court last friday regarding the write in process.  An efficient write in process is expected to help Lisa Murkowski.  It doesn’t look like a very efficient process.

The preclearance letter is here.

Baltimore Radio Tuesday.  WCMB-AM.   8 am hour.  Voter fraud, military ballots I presume too.

I’ll be on Rocky Mountain Blowtorch KOA-AM in Denver Tuesday at 5:35 a.m. MST.  Talking about voter fraud and what to look out for and where to report it.

The District Court Judge in Rudolph v. Fenumiai has set a briefing schedule.  Essentially, the briefing must be done by 8pm EST.  The court may enjoin the directives of the Alaska Supreme Court regarding write in information.  If the effects of the Alaska Supreme Court opinion from last week are enjoined, the polling places Tuesday must resort to the benchmark practice of distributing the write in list.  The Alaska Supreme Court opinion vested greater authority in the election officials while the prior benchmark had a document to be distributed.