Article I Section II of the United States Constitution specifically states, “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.” But North Carolina Gov. Beverly Perdue (D) would rather we just skip over that section and suspend congressional elections for two years. Speaking at a Rotary Club event today, Perdue proposed holding off on elections for a while so lawmakers can focus on the economy — a suggestion that’s breathtaking just by virtue of how blatantly unconstitutional it is:

Speaking to a Cary rotary club today, N.C. Gov. Bev Perdue suggested suspending Congressional elections for two years so that Congress can focus on economic recovery and not the next election.

“I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that,” Perdue said. “You want people who don’t worry about the next election.”

The comment — which came during a discussion of the economy — perked more than a few ears. It’s unclear whether Perdue, a Democrat, is serious — but her tone was level and she asked others to support her on the idea.

It’s not hard to sympathize with the sentiment behind Perdue’s remark. Because they have to run for reelection every two years, congressmen remain so fixated on fundraising and campaigning that they forget to be lawmakers and have trouble putting politics aside to focus on compromise and what’s good for the country. However, it’s a dangerous precedent to set to suggest we simply suspend democracy every time unemployment goes above 9 percent.

The serious, responsible way to pursue Perdue’s idea would be through a constitutional amendment. As the American Prospect observes, unnecessarily frequent elections contribute to Washington’s gridlock and the plague of never-ending campaigns. Extending terms for members of the House is a discussion worth having — but preferably in a legal way.

Deep budgets cuts in states across the country could jeopardize citizens’ most fundamental right: to vote for their elected representatives. NPR reports today that states’ election offices have been particularly hard hit by the cutbacks, and voters may experience longer lines and faulty voting equipment as a result:

Gail Pellerin, the county clerk in Santa Cruz, Calif., says she’s considering trimming the number of voting sites in her county by about 20 percent next year because her budget keeps shrinking.

“Each year, they come back and say, ‘Do more with less, you know, we’re going to end up having to give you less again,’” she says, adding that her budget for extra workers at election time has also been reduced. She says this means voters might have to travel farther to cast their ballots, and wait longer for help. Workers in her office also face mandatory furloughs.[...]

In South Carolina, the State Election Commission is also feeling the squeeze. In 2000, the office had a budget of over $2 million. Today, it’s making do with about $850,000 — a 60 percent cut, says spokesman Chris Whitmire.

“Basically, we’re down to a critical level — sort of a bare-bones level — where if we saw any more cuts I think it would have a significant impact on our ability to provide services to counties,” he says.

The state of California is no longer paying counties to send out absentee ballots, which means counties will have to come up with the money on their own if their residents are to have the option of voting absentee. Several states have shortened the number of days for early voting, consolidated the number of precincts, or eliminated paper voting guides to save money.

One of the biggest concerns about the cuts is how they will impact electronic voting machines. Most places bought new electronic equipment after the 2000 elections but its much more expensive to maintain and usually needs to be replaced every 10-12 years. But election expert Charles Stewart says that many election offices are deferring or canceling maintenance contracts to save money.

While all voters will be affected, the changes disproportionately impact low-income and elderly voters who have limited resources or capacity to travel long distances to vote or wait for hours in line. A near-record turnout is expected in the 2012 elections, but with less money, fewer machines, poll workers, and voting sites, it’s unclear that states will be able to handle the influx.

In yet another heartwarming example of “compassionate conservatism,” several Republican congressmen have proposed a bill that would force authorities to deport undocumented immigrant women who are victims of domestic violence and come to them for help. Police officers and immigrant advocates are speaking out against the law, which would make victims of violent crime far less likely to report it to the police:

According to immigrant advocates, a new immigration enforcement bill being considered in Congress would undermine existing immigration law by removing prosecutorial discretion and deferred action, two components that protect undocumented victims of domestic violence.

Michelle Ortiz — the supervising attorney of Lucha, a unit within the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center — says that Rep. Lamar Smith’s Hinder the Administration Legalization Temptation Act (better known as the HALT Act) would force immigration authorities to deport victims of domestic violence who reach out for help.

Smith, R-Texas, has said the HALT Act is necessary because President Obama is seeking “backdoor amnesty” for millions of undocumented immigrants. The bill is cosponsored by Florida Republicans Vern Buchanan, Richard Nugent and C.W. Bill Young.

Republicans have been crying foul ever since the Obama administration announced last month that it would suspend deportation proceedings against many undocumented immigrants who pose no threat to national security or public safety. But venting their anger by forcibly deporting abused women and separating them from their families seems particularly cruel.

Ortiz explains that the bill would repeal many of the protections offered under the 1994 Violence Against Women Act. When domestic violence victims self-petition the Immigration Service and have their petition approved (which means they have already proven they are victims and married their partner in good faith), ICE gives them deferred action. This is not a legal status, but a protection from deportation, and gives them an avenue to apply for work authorization.

But Smith’s bill would end deferred action — as well as prosecutorial discretion that allows ICE agents to be lenient on abuse victims — thereby stripping immigration authorities of their power to protect the undocumented women who most need their help.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) was supposed to be the Tea Party’s messiah. He thinks Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional. He rebels against climate science. And he would eliminate all national banking and consumer protection laws. There’s just one problem. Perry also signed a law that treats undocumented immigrant children as human beings — something Perry’s base vehemently opposes.

So leading conservatives spent most of yesterday proclaiming their new savior: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Before the GOP anoints Christie as their new Chosen One, however, they might want to take a moment to consider the New Jersey governor’s eminently reasonable record on immigration. Simply put, Chris Christie makes Rick Perry look like Tom Tancredo:

Chris Christie is hardly the ally that illegal-immigration foes are looking for. In 2010, Christie told Politico that America needs to come up with a “clear path to citizenship.” He didn’t say “for illegal immigrants,” but since America already has a clear path to citizenship for legal immigrants, that’s what he meant. This is an entirely reasonable and mainstream position, but in much of the GOP, they call it “amnesty.”

Christie’s opponents could also point to the time he insisted that being in the country illegally is not a crime but an “administrative matter.” He’s right — simply overstaying your visa, for example, can get you deported but can’t land you in jail. But to impassioned illegal-immigration warriors, we’re not sure the nuance will be appreciated.

Then there’s Christie’s record on illegal immigration as a U.S. Attorney in New Jersey, the job he held before he became governor. Back in 2008, Bill Tucker, a producer on Lou Dobbs’s now-deceased CNN show, could only find thirteen illegal-immigration cases prosecuted by Christie’s office between 2002 and 2007. Tucker compared that to the U.S. Attorney’s office in Kansas, which, despite a much smaller population, prosecuted 597 cases in the same time period. “This man is an utter embarrassment,” Dobbs wailed.

Indeed, Dobbs had a whole lot of other choice phrases for Christie’s “arrogance, incompetence and cuteness,” which you can watch here:

So Christie is hardly qualified for the job of ultra-pure defender of Tea Party values, but the truth really is that no one is. If Rick Perry’s plan to kill Social Security, eliminate national child labor laws and the minimum wage, thumb his nose at science, and turn the keys of the nation’s economy over to Goldman Sachs and Bank of America isn’t enough to satisfy the Republican base, it’s tough to imagine anyone who would be so untainted by reason that they could succeed where Perry failed.

Earlier this month, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R) proposed rigging the 2012 presidential election for the Republican candidate by effectively giving away as many as a dozen of the blue state’s electoral votes to that candidate. Under Corbett’s scheme, each of the state’s 18 congressional districts will allocate one electoral vote during the 2012 election, rather than having the state’s entire electoral vote go to the overall winner of the state. Because the GOP will also gerrymander these districts ensure that up to 12 of them are solidly Republican, the purpose of Corbett’s plan’s is to ensure that President Obama will get less electoral votes than his challenger even if he wins the state as a whole.

Yesterday, however, nearly every single Republican member of Congress from Pennsylvania met with state lawmakers to oppose Corbett’s vote rigging scheme — warning that it could potentially endanger their own ability to hold their seats. According to the subscription-only site Capitolwire:

Most of the state’s Republican congressional delegation met with top state House and Senate leaders backing colleagues who want to sideline a pair of controversial bills: a Senate-proposed electoral college change bill, and a mandate that Pennsylvanians show photo ID before voting.

Eleven members of the state’s 12-member congressional Republican delegation met with Senate leaders this afternoon . . . . The congressmen also voiced opposition in both meetings to Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi’s proposal to split up the state’s 20 electoral votes by congressional district, in 2012. Pileggi, R-Delaware, heard out comments against his proposal from U.S. Reps. Bill Shuster, R-Blair, Tim Murphy, R-Allegheny, Jim Gerlach, R-Chester, Charlie Dent, R-Lehigh and Meehan.

All stressed the negative impact this could have by making swing U.S. House districts more competitive, and more expensive.

The fact that several Republican lawmakers objected to the Pennsylvania GOP’s proposed voter ID law is a particularly interesting wrinkle in this drama. Voter ID laws, which disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of poor, minority and student voters, have been the centerpiece of the Republican Party’s war on voting — an effort which also includes making it harder to register to vote and taking away opportunities to vote early.

As it turns out, however, Republican members of Congress in Pennsylvania care a whole lot less about mucking with the rules to benefit the GOP as a whole than they do about keeping the same rules in place that allowed them to get elected in the first place.