This is the fourth installment in an ongoing series on voting rights leading up to Election Day 2011.

In June, the Maine legislature adopted a bill repealing the state’s 38-year-old law allowing citizens to register to vote on election day. LD 1376 narrowly passed along partisan lines, with a handful of Republicans joining every Democrat to oppose the measure.

Now, as Maine’s citizens prepare to vote on a veto referendum determining election day registration’s (EDR) fate, two surprising allies have joined forces to protect voting rights in the Pine Tree State: Bowdoin College Republicans and College Democrats.

Though Republican lawmakers were behind the effort to repeal EDR, Bowdoin College Republicans broke with their party to support Question 1 on Tuesday’s ballot and maintain a system that has done a great deal to boost turnout among students.

ThinkProgress spoke with the leaders of both the College Republicans and College Democrats to get their thoughts on what EDR means for students in Maine. Watch it:

Robert Flores, co-chairman of the campus Republicans, said the decision to support election day registration was an easy one for him. “[Republican Gov. Paul] LePage and several Republican higher-ups registered same-day,” noted Flores. “If it’s good enough for LePage, it’s good enough for everyone.” Flores said same day registration was a major asset when trying to turn out students on election day because he could tell them, “you still have an opportunity to vote, it’s not too late. Get out there.”

College Democrats co-president Judah Isseroff agreed, saying that EDR has “always been a boon to voting turnout” among students. Many students, he noted, changed dorms year to year without realizing they needed to update their voter registration file; EDR allowed them to do so without being disenfranchised. Isseroff estimated that hundreds of students on campus had benefited from same day registration.

Polls show young voters overwhelmingly support maintaining Maine’s election day registration law. Though voters as a whole are split – 48 percent in favor, 44 percent opposed – those under 30 side with EDR by a 61-39 margin.

Read ThinkProgress’ first dispatch on the Question 1 vote here.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) has been under fire recently for her dramatic political move to interfere with the state’s bipartisan redistricting commission. Annoyed that the commission did not redraw congressional districts to benefit Republicans, Brewer convinced the GOP-controlled state Senate to impeach the commission’s independent chairwoman, Colleen Mathis.

State officials are only supposed to be impeached for “neglect of duty and gross misconduct.” But during an interview this week on Alan Colmes’ radio show, Brewer became completely incoherent when trying to defend her actions. She could not explain what offenses Mathis had committed that could possibly justify her impeachment:

COLMES: What did Colleen do that was inappropriate, Colleen Mathis?

BREWER: Well she acted, uh, inappropriately. Well it was very, pretty much obvious that she in communications, and doing things, uh, not in the public, and the people of Arizona deserve that –

COLMES: You mean she was doing things secretly? Like what?

BREWER: They just simply need to operate in a lawful and open fashion…

COLMES: I’m trying to understand what she did. What are you accusing her of having done?

BREWER: Well she wasn’t operating in the proper manner.

Listen here:

The Huffington Post reported that Brewer moved to impeach Mathis after being lobbied by incumbent GOP congressmen who wanted to protect their seats. Democrats have been calling for Brewer herself to be ousted for such an egregious attempt to compromise the integrity of the democratic process to rig elections for the GOP.

Just three months after Romney proclaimed that “corporations are people,” he has pledged to ensure that the Supreme Court will continue to share this delusion. During editorial board meeting yesterday, Romney promised that if he is elected, he will model his Supreme Court picks after corporate America’s most favorite justices:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said if he had the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court justice he or she would be in the mold of Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.

“Their approach is the approach I would encourage,” he said. “I would try to find those who would follow the Constitution.

Setting aside the obvious tension between Romney’s promise to appoint justices like Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, or Alito and his promise to appoint justices who will “follow the Constitution,” it’s important to note exactly what Romney is endorsing by supporting these four justices:

• More Corporate Money In Elections: Every single one of Romney’s model justices were in the majority in Citizens United. That means that every single one of them believes that wealthy corporations should have a nearly unlimited power to buy and sell American elections. Every single one of them also voted to undermine public financing laws in a way that eviscerates candidates without well-moneyed backers’ ability to compete in elections.
• Judges For Sale: Every single one of Romney’s model justices voted in Caperton v. Massey to allow a wealthy coal CEO to pay $3 million to elect a sympathetic justice to a state supreme court in order to stack that court with jurists who would overturn a $50 million verdict against his company.
• Corporate-Owned Courts: Every single one of Romney’s model justices voted to give corporations a nearly unlimited power to force workers and consumers into a privatized, corporate-run arbitration system that overwhelming favors corporations. Under their vision, real courts run by neutral judges are off limits to anyone a clever corporation does business with.
• Dividing And Conquering Ordinary Americans: Every single one of Romney’s model justices voted in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion to allow corporations to strip their workers and consumers of their ability to bring class action lawsuits. Because of this decision, corporations now have a nearly unlimited power to cheat the people who do business with them — so long as they only do it a few dollars at a time.
• Corporate Immunity To The Law: Every single one of Romney’s model justices voted to give generic drug makers immunity to key state laws after one of their drugs caused a condition called tardive dyskinesia in many of the people who took it. Tardive dyskinesia is an horrific neurological condition that causes sometimes crippling, uncontrollable bodily movements, often in the face:

Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito envision an America where elections are decided by the highest bidder, where corporations control the courts, and where ordinary Americans have to beg corporate permission before they can hold the wealthiest companies accountable to the law. And if Mitt Romney gets his way, there will be even more of them on the Supreme Court.

A massive 196 House Democrats — nearly their entire caucus — signed a letter to state election officials asking them to “put partisan considerations aside and serve as advocates for enfranchisement” during this unfortunate era of voter disenfranchising state laws:

Beginning with the passage of the Voting Rights Act, Congress and election officials across the country have worked on a bipartisan basis to open our democracy to all our citizens. Removing unnecessary barriers to voting was a cause shared across party lines. Sometimes, these efforts were directed at laws and practices that were intentionally created to deny citizens their right to vote. Other times, the laws or practices were relics of a prior era and served no continuing purpose. [...]

But a disturbing trend is emerging. Election legislation and administration appear to be increasingly the product of partisan plays. Election officials are seen as partisan combatants, rather than stewards of our democracy. It is critical for our democracy that this does not continue. Voting hours, voting sites, identification requirements, voter registration regulation and access to mail ballots should not be used as weapons to achieve a preferred electoral outcome.

It’s tough to imagine a starker contrast between the vision this letter offers and the antics we are currently seeing in many GOP-controlled states. The House Democratic letter does not call upon state officials to rig their election procedures to bring more Democrats to the polls, it simply says that everyone has a basic right to vote. Under this vision, the American people have every right to choose a Republican government, but this choice must be made freely and with the input of every single eligible voter.

Yet, in state after state, governors and state lawmakers are asserting a drastically different vision. In the last few years, numerous states have enacted so-called “voter ID” laws which do nothing more than disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of student, minority and low-income voters. Republicans typically justify these voter disenfranchisement laws by claiming that they are necessary to combat voter fraud at the polls, but in-person voter fraud is only slightly more common than unicorns. A recent Supreme Court opinion allowing a voter ID law to take effect was only able to cite one example of in-person voter fraud in the last 143 years.

Nor are voter ID laws the only Republican assault on our right to choose our own leaders. Republican lawmakers have gutted public financing laws that allow candidates without major corporate or other wealth backers to still compete in elections — even as Republican Supreme Court justices open the floodgates for corporations to buy elections. Republican officials have made it harder to register to vote, harder to vote early, and they have declared war on the landmark Voting Rights Act. Pennsylvania Republicans have even proposed rigging the Electoral College to help ensure that a Republican becomes president in 2013.

In other words, as former President Bill Clinton recently explained, we are now seeing the most “determined effort to limit the franchise” since Jim Crow.

In July, the press learned that Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL), a Tea Party freshman in Congress, owed $117,000 in unpaid child support to his ex-wife. Walsh, despite earning a hefty salary as a member of Congress, has continued to refuse to pay his ex-wife to support his children. Now, it appears, an influential Christian right lobbying group is lending some support to the deadbeat congressman.

The Sun-Times reports that the Family Research Council, a social conservative advocacy nonprofit headed by CNN pundit Tony Perkins, has awarded Walsh a 100 percent rating as a “True Blue” member of Congress. The FRC said it gave the honor to Walsh because of his “unwavering support of the family”:

“We thank Cong. Walsh who has voted consistently to defend faith, family and freedom,” said FRCA President Tony Perkins. “Cong. Walsh and other ‘True Blue Members’ have voted to repeal Obamacare, de-fund Planned Parenthood, end government funding for abortion within the health care law, uphold the Defense of Marriage Act, and continue support for school choice. I applaud their commitment to uphold the institutions of marriage and family.”

“I am proud and honored to be recognized by the Family Research Council as the only member from Illinois with a 100 percent pro-family voting record,” Walsh said in a news release. “Defending American values have always been one of my top priorities, and this reward reaffirms my dedication to that fight.”

Despite their very poor understanding of what the term “pro-family” means — the Family Research Council was recently designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center because of their virulently anti-gay views — they are disturbingly influential among conservative lawmakers. Their legislative arm’s annual “Values Voters” convention drew such speakers as Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX), Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), and former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) this year.

Additionally, it’s worth noting that Walsh’s failure to pay child support isn’t even his only failure to look out for the basic needs of his own family. As Marie Diamond noted for ThinkProgress a few months ago, “Walsh also rejected the congressional health insurance plan for his family on principle, much to the chagrin of his current wife, Helene, who had a preexisting condition and needed surgery while the couple was uninsured.”

Recently, a judge rebuked Walsh for failing to even show up to a court hearing about his missed child support payments, telling the Chicago-area lawmaker that he doesn’t deserve special treatment and that he’s “no different than anyone else.”