Maine’s Secretary of State, who gained national attention last year for sending a threatening letter to hundreds of student voters encouraging them to re-register in another state, won the Republican Senate nomination last night.

As Maine’s election chief, Charlie Summers sent a letter to 206 University of Maine students with out-of-state home addresses last summer and mentioned “allegations of election law violations” against them. The letter strongly implied that the students did not meet Maine’s residency requirements before pushing them to cancel their voter registration and register elsewhere: “If, instead, you are no longer claiming to be a Maine resident, I ask that you complete the enclosed form to cancel your voter registration in Maine so that out our central voter registration system can be updated.”

Despite Summers’ intimidation campaign against out-of-state students registering to vote in Maine, the Supreme Court ruled three decades ago that students cannot be held to a different residency standard than other people within the state.

Still, his letter succeeded in frightening many of its recipients. A few told ThinkProgress they were “beyond scared and freaked out” because they thought the letter meant they were going to be sued.

As bad as the letter itself was, the reason why they were sent in the first place may be even worse. Summers received the list of students from Maine Republican Party Chairman Charlie Webster, who accused the students of committing voter fraud and called for making them pay taxes in order to vote. Webster has called for making voting more difficult because “Democrats intentionally steal elections.”

Though he is supposed to oversee elections in a fair and non-partisan manner as Secretary of State, Summers’ collusion with Webster to disenfranchise hundreds of students calls that into question.

This threatening letter wasn’t the first time Summers took steps that would prevent people from voting. Last year, he spearheaded a campaign to get rid of Election Day registration in Maine, which ultimately passed the state legislature and was signed by the Tea Party governor. However, Mainers rallied against the move, gathering signatures for a November referendum that ultimately rebuked the legislature and restored Election Day registration by a nearly two-to-one margin.

Now, Summers is one step closer to the Senate, where he would have a much larger platform to push for anti-voting measures. As he faces off against Democrat Cynthia Dill and Independent Angus King in the Maine Senate election, Summers currently has no plans to step down from his role as Maine’s elections chief.

Michigan is poised to become the latest state to enact legislation making it more difficult for citizens to vote.

Yesterday, the State House passed a trio of voter suppression bills — SB 751, SB 754, and SB 803 — that will create new requirements for people registering to vote, as well as groups that help them.

Among the new restrictions in these bills:

- Photo ID to register: Michiganders who register to vote in person at a government agency would be forced to bring a state-issued photo ID with them. Hundreds of thousands of Michigan residents currently lack such IDs. If they don’t bring them, their application will be treated like a mail registration application, preventing them from voting absentee in the next election.

- Onerous restrictions for voter registration groups: Outside organizations like the League of Women Voters would be required to register with the state, provide the names and addresses of every volunteer who helps register voters, and force them to obtain training from the Secretary of State or election officials. It’s unclear how regularly such trainings would take place. In addition, in the last week of the voter registration period, a particularly high-volume time, groups would be required to submit any completed voter registration forms within two business days. A federal judge blocked a similar provision in Florida two weeks ago.

- New ways to disenfranchise voters: Every time voters uses an electoral form, whether it be an application or a ballot, they must check off a box affirming they are indeed a U.S. citizen. The measure is wholly unnecessary for three reasons. First, people must affirm they are citizens when they first register. Second, citizenship is not a status that changes. Finally, non-citizens are not trying to vote in the United States. The problem this measure presents is that if a voter shows any hesitation whatsoever — perhaps they aren’t a native English-speaker and didn’t understand the question — he exposes himself to an elector challenge that could ultimately invalidate his vote.

The Senate has already passed the three bills. Once discrepancies between the two chambers’ versions are ironed out, they will likely advance to Gov. Rick Snyder’s (R) desk.

In a country where 40-60 percent of citizens don’t vote, the last thing we should be doing is putting up new barriers that make voting more difficult, not less.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is harshly criticizing Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) potential alternative to the DREAM Act — an idea that has yet to be proposed in a bill, but has provided the Republican Party with a perceived method for appeasing Latino voters — because Rubio won’t support a full path to citizenship. Without providing a path to citizenship and access to higher education for qualified undocumented youth, the USCCB believes that young immigrants will be “at risk of living as second class citizens in our society.”

The USCCB has supported the DREAM Act for the past several years, and a new action alert on the Justice for Immigrants section of its website reinforces this position by urging Catholics to pressure their legislators to pass the DREAM Act immediately. In the text of the action alert, the Bishops have some choice words for Sen. Rubio’s expressed opposition to passing the DREAM Act in its entirety:

The changes to the DREAM Act offered by Sen. Rubio would create a permanent underclass of people who would be unable to receive the benefits and protections as American citizens. The U.S. Catholic bishops firmly believe that DREAM Act eligible youth should have an opportunity to earn their citizenship.

While Sen. Rubio is to be commended for engaging in the issue of bringing a segment of the undocumented population out of the shadows, the current version of the DREAM Act is a better legislative vehicle than the any of the proposed alternatives. [The DREAM Act] is a thoughtful and sensible solution to the difficulties faced by many undocumented young immigrants who live in our communities and attend U.S. high schools, both respecting their human dignity and upholding our ideals of American citizenship.

Another Florida Republican, Rep. David Rivera, has also introduced an alternative to the DREAM Act — however, Rep. Rivera’s bill also fails to live up to the Catholic Bishop’s standards, since it severely complicates and limits the path to citizenship for young immigrants. As the Bishops point out, “Senator Rubio’s and Representative Rivera’s proposals would not serve the best interest of our nation. The vast majority of DREAM-eligible youth are, for practical purposes, Americans.”

MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin — Last year, nearly a dozen new states passed voter ID laws. These laws may have prevented the nine cases of voter impersonation that occurred between 2000 and 2007, but the Brennan Center estimates they could collectively disenfranchise more than three million people this year. In other words, for each case of voter impersonation these laws prevent, nearly 350,000 citizens may lose their right to vote.

ThinkProgress traveled to Wisconsin recently to investigate how the new law, if allowed to stand by the state judiciary, would affect voters in the state. (Two judges recently blocked the law, but their ruling will be appealed.)

One Wisconsinite we spoke with, 95-year-old Florence Hessing of Bayfield, said that she’d voted in every election without any problems until voter ID was enacted. However, her driver’s license expired when she stopped driving at the age of 90 (she’s now half-blind) and because she was likely born via midwife, she didn’t have a birth certificate required to get a new photo ID. Lawyers were eventually able to find an exemption for Hessing that will ultimately allow her to vote, but thousands of other Wisconsinites might not be as lucky. Indeed, a University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee study found that approximately 300,000 lack photo ID.

Watch a short video about Hessing and other potential victims of new Wisconsin’s voter ID law:

You can read about other people denied their voting rights by new voter ID laws here.

In a rare “scoop” for an editorial cartoonist today, Matt Bors skewered a little-known National Rifle Association (NRA) program that offers insurance to cover policy holders’ costs should they become embroiled in a legal battle after shooting someone in self-defense.

The insurance — technically endorsed by the NRA and administered by Lockton Affinity exclusively for NRA members — is available as a rider to the “excess personal liability” plan. Here’s how the website advertises the added coverage for self-defense (emphasis in the original):

What’s Covered:

• Provides coverage up to the limit selected for criminal and civil defense costs.

• Cost of civil suit defense is provided in addition to the limit of liability for bodily injury and property damage.

• Criminal Defense Reimbursement is provided for alleged criminal actions involving self-defense when you are acquitted of such criminal charges or the charges are dropped.

The basic liability plan costs either $47 or $67 annually, for coverage up to $100,000 or $250,000, respectively. Though the coverage amounts stay the same, a policy holder can add the self-defense insurance by paying $118 or $165 for the lesser coverage, or between $187 and $254 for the larger plan. (The discrepancies are due to the different prices for coverage on two different webpages from the insurer.)

The NRA pushed its members in 2005 to support Florida’s controversial “stand your ground” law — an exemption from arrest or prosecution in shootings where the police think the act was in self defense. When the law got bad press after police let the man who shot and killed Florida teenager Trayvon Martin go free, the NRA refused to back down, continuing to support the law’s passage in other states (amid other acts of insensitivity around Martin’s shooting death).

Here’s Matt Bors’ cartoon skewering the insurance program:

Currently, 17 states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana. In the second half of 2012, seven more states will decide, either in the state legislature or via ballot initiatives, whether they will join them in legalizing the use of marijuana, in whole or in part.

Recent polling shows that 3/4 of Americans support the right to use state-sanctioned medical marijuana. Support for full marijuana legalization is at an all-time high of 50%.

1. Illinois – House Bill 0030, the Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act, would legalize medical marijuana on a trial basis. Physicians who diagnose their patients with debilitating conditions could prescribe medical marijuana. Patients, who would have to register with the Department of Health, would be able to possess up to 6 marjiuana plants and up to 2 ounces of usable marijuana. After three years, the Act would expire, meaning that the legislature would have the chance to decide whether to keep it in place.

2. Massachussetts - Two house bills, one to legalize marijuana for adults over 21 and the other to legalize only medical marijuana, failed to pass the state legislature. Bay Staters have gotten to work getting the Massachusetts Medical Marijuana Initiative on the ballot. Their deadline for the 68,911 signatures is right after the July 4 holiday.

3. Missouri – House Bill 1421 would allow Missourians with debilitating conditions to grow up to three marijuana plants with a yield of up to one ounce per plant. It also legalizes medical marijuana dispensaries in the state. It has not yet been voted on.

4. New York – The State Assembly will soon vote on Senate Bill 7283, which would legalize “the possession, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, transport or administration of marihuana by a certified patient or designated caregiver for a certified medical use”.

5. New Hampshire – Senate Bill 409, authored by Republican Jim Forsythe, legalizes medical marijuana for patients who meet state-mandated criteria. In early June, the bill passed the state legislature, becoming the first medical marijuana bill to pass a Republican-led state senate. However, Gov. Jim Lynch has said he will veto the bill, necessitating further action from its supporters.

6. Ohio – In Ohio, citizens didn’t gather enough signatures to get the Ohio Medical Cannabis Act of 2012 on the ballot in November, which would create a state commission to regulate medical marijuana, functioning much like liquor controlling commissions.

7. Pennsylvania – The state senate will soon vote on SB 1003, which would legalize medical marijuana in the state. The bill may be renamed “The Governor Raymond Shafer Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act” in honor of moderate Republican governor Raymond Shafer (1967-1971).

(HT: The Inquisitr)

–Ben Sherman

In 2006, during the presidency of George W. Bush, the Justice Department launched the first of a series of misguided “gunrunning” schemes that eventually led to the death of federal Agent Brian Terry. Rather than look to ways to prevent such a tragedy from happening again, however, House Oversight Chair Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) spent his tenure as a committee chair trying unsuccessfully to embarrass Attorney General Eric Holder.

Next week, Issa plans to escalate this witchhunt by holding an committee vote on a resolution to hold the Attorney General in contempt of Congress. Here’s what you need to know about this vote:

1. Issa Has No Case: Issa’s uncovered no evidence showing Holder bears any blame for the botched operations begun under George W. Bush, even though the Justice Department turned over thousands of pages of documents concerning the operations. Instead of accepting this fact, Issa has requested many more documents containing confidential information regarding ongoing law enforcement investigations, and is now threatening to hold Holder in contempt if these documents are not turned over. Holder is entirely correct to withhold these documents, however, because Justice Department documents are not subject to congressional subpoena if they would reveal “strategies and procedures that could be used by individuals seeking to evade [DOJ's] law enforcement efforts.”

2. Reagan’s Justice Department Agreed With Holder: President Reagan’s Justice Department warned in the 1980s that the Constitution’s separation of powers prevents the kind of documents Issa is seeking from being revealed to Congress because of the risk that the legislature could “exert pressure or attempt to influence the prosecution of criminal cases.”

3. Law Enforcement Rejects Issa’s Witchhunt: Issa’s efforts to embarrass Holder are an unnecessary distraction that hinders the Department of Justice’s ability to do its real job. As an organization representing numerous senior law enforcement officials warned Issa, his efforts are “an impediment to the vigorous enforcement of violence and crime.”

4. Even Top Republicans Think Issa Goes Too Far: After Issa leaked his plans to pursue contempt charges to the media, the House Republican leadership pressured him to back off. Indeed, even House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) has indicated that Issa is overreaching.

5. Issa Is Fixated On A Conspiracy Theory: Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of this affair is what Issa once suggested his investigation will uncover. In an interview with Sean Hannity, Issa claimed that the Obama administration “made a crisis” when they continued the Bush-era gunrunning operations because they wanted to “us[e] this crisis to somehow take away or limit people’s Second Amendment rights.” This accusation originates from a former militiaman who supports violent resistance to imagined government attempts to seize his guns. And it amounts to an accusation that a series of botched gun stings that begun during the Bush Administration were actually part of a secret Obama plot to release guns to Mexican drug lords, so that those guns could then be used to kill federal agents, which would then cause a national uprising in support of gun control.