Monday, February 8th, 2010
Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY, 2/8/10. WASHINGTON DC — As the Supreme Court nears the midpoint of its annual term and prepares to hear several momentous cases, one question looms: Will the justices’ split decision reversing past rulings and allowing new corporate spending in political races set the tone for the term, or will Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission be an exception?
“Is this a turning point?” asks Pamela Harris, director of Georgetown Law’s Supreme Court Institute. Harris notes that Chief Justice John Roberts’ concurring opinion in the campaign-finance case defended reversing past rulings that have been, as Roberts wrote, “so hotly contested that (they) cannot reliably function as a basis for decision in future cases.” Read More
Monday, February 8th, 2010
THE NEW YORK TIMES, 1/28/10. Internet voting is in its infancy, and still far too unreliable, but states are starting to allow it and the trend is accelerating because of a new federal law that requires greater efforts to help military and other overseas voters cast ballots. Men and women in uniform must have a fair opportunity to vote, but allowing online voting in its current state could open elections up to vote theft and other mischief.
It is often hard for military voters to get ballots, and because of distance and unreliable mail service, it can be difficult or impossible for them to meet election deadlines. A year ago, the Pew Center on the States found that more than one-third of states do not provide military voters stationed abroad with enough time to vote, or are at high risk of not providing enough time. To address this problem, the new Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act requires states in most cases to get ballots to military and overseas voters well in advance of regularly scheduled federal elections. Read More
Monday, February 8th, 2010
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH, 2/8/10. COLUMBUS — Now that the General Assembly has proved itself capable of effectively governing, by compromising to put a renewal of the Third Frontier tech-investment program on the May ballot, dare Ohioans hope that legislators could summon similar statesmanship to push two more good ideas to the finish line?
Two efforts that have been languishing for some time — improving the state’s criminal-justice system regarding the use of DNA evidence and changing the way legislative districts are drawn — might provoke a bit more argument than the widely praised Third Frontier, but both are worthy undertakings. Both have been vetted and deserve a vote. Read More
Monday, February 8th, 2010
THE VINDICATOR, 2/8/10. There’s a better way to draw new legislative districts If ever there were a year for members of the Ohio General Assembly to get behind a proposal that might take some of the politics out of redistricting, this is the year. That’s because the 2010 elections — elections that will decide which party will get control of redistricting under current law — are as up in the air as they could be.
Under the Ohio Constitution, the commission overseeing redistricting — the process used to draw new General Assembly and congressional districts following a national census — is made up of the governor, state auditor, secretary of state and single majority and minority members of the Ohio House and Senate. Today, Democrats would hold the majority on the commission, given that the governor and secretary of state are Democrats and the auditor a Republican. But all three offices will be decided in the 2010 elections and there is only one incumbent, Gov. Ted Strickland seeking re-election. Recent events would indicate that this could be a year of change, and polls give Republicans the edge. On the other hand, politics in the United States is in a period of volatility that makes it virtually impossible to predict how the political winds will be blowing in eight months. Read More
Sunday, February 7th, 2010
Jonathan Riskind, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH, 2/7/10. Whether you think the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling giving corporations, unions and nonprofits virtually unfettered campaign spending rights is the end of democracy as we know it or a sterling example of upholding the First Amendment, everyone should be able to agree on one path forward.
Disclosure. Require the companies, labor unions or whoever else starts lobbing so-called independent expenditures for and against candidates in the form of TV ads, mailings or whatever to reveal where the money comes from, put it all on the Web and do it fast.
If the pharmaceutical industry lavishes $5 million worth of TV ads on behalf of Congressman X, everyone should know about it immediately and have at their fingertips the information about precisely which companies are spending that money. Ditto if the AFL-CIO spends millions to help Senator Y.
The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision essentially treating corporations and unions as people for First Amendment purposes did by an 8-1 margin back the idea of some disclosure and disclaimer requirements. But now it is up to the politicians to make sure that actually means something. Read More
News Feed
