A new web video by Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock (R), the Republican nominee for Sen. Dick Lugar’s now-open Senate seat this November, is yet another indication of just how wrong the assumptions underling Justice Anthony Kennedy’s Citizens United majority opinion were. In it the 5-4 majority agreed that “The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy. By definition, an independent expenditure is political speech presented to the electorate that is not coordinated with a candidate.”

Already, “independent” Super PACs have been hiring the same political consulting firms as the candidates they are supporting. Already, the Romney campaign has enlisted Karl Rove, the co-founder of two of the largest pro-Romney outside groups, to participate in a strategy retreat with top-level campaign donors and bundlers. Both are apparently-legal moves that fly in the face of the spirit of non-coordination rules.

Now, Mourdock’s campaign is apparently using yet another loophole. Since the campaign made not directly work with allied “outside” groups, it has posted a four-minutes-and-36-seconds-long video of footage of the candidate online, just in case any outside groups happen to want to use it.

The National Journal describes the video, titled “Indiana Footage,” as “essentially a soundless highlight reel of high-quality, uplifting footage of Mourdock shaking hands with voters, speaking, and driving.”

Watch the spot:

Mourdock’s primary win relied heavily on outside spending. This video is either one of the most boring political ads of all time or a not-so-subtle request to well-heeled outside groups to invest more for the November general election.

This November, voters will face ballot questions on a variety of issues. Some initiatives are targeted at denying the rights of working families, women, LGBT people, communities of color, immigrants, and the poor, while others are targeted at implementing better public policy. Ten important issues to watch this November can be found here and here are five more issues to watch:

1. Marijuana laws in Colorado, Montana, and Washington: Colorado, Montana, and Washington all have ballot questions that could lead to partial decriminalization. In Colorado and Washington, voters will choose whether to legalize and regulate sales of small quantities of marijuana to residents 21 years and older. In Montana, voters will decide whether to repeal a law that itself was aimed at repealing a voter approved initiative legalizing medical marijuana in 2004. Seventy-seven percent of Americans believe that doctors should be able to proscribe medical marijuana and 75% believe that the federal government should defer to a state’s decision to legalize marijuana for certain uses.
2. Three-Strikes Law in California: California voters will choose whether or not to alter elements of the state’s “three-strikes law,” which was originally approved as a ballot measure in 1994. The modifications would reserve life sentences for a third strike only in cases where the new felony conviction is serious or violent, and allow re-sentencing for offenders already serving a life term for a non-violent felony. Proponents of the initiative include top prosecutors in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and, according to a recent study, the three-strikes law as it stands is both costly and ineffective.
3. Courts Composition in Florida: In Florida, voters will face a ballot question on the size and composition of Florida’s Supreme Court. The proposal would add three justices to the seven-member court and create two five justice divisions, one criminal and one civil. While the proposal is backed by business groups like the Florida Chamber of Commerce, opponents are concerned about further politicizing the courts and giving Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) more influence over the courts by allowing him to choose three new justices.
4. Repealing Emergency Managers Law in Michigan: Michigan voters may get a chance to repeal the state’s emergency managers law. If placed on the ballot and passed, the repeal would undo a law that gives “emergency manager sweeping powers to override local elected officials, including the power to amend or throw out union contracts” if the governor declares that a local government is in financial distress.
5. Election Laws in Ohio: Ohio voters may get a chance to repeal HB 194, a controversial law that curtailed voting rights in the state. The bill restricts early voting, eliminates the requirement that poll workers direct voters to the proper precinct, and makes it harder to vote absentee. The initiative is embroiled in a legal controversy because Republicans in Ohio’s legislature are attempting to undercut the initiative by repealing some parts of the law. Voters may also decide whether to change the redistricting process in Ohio by creating a citizen panel to draw maps.

–Alex Brown

A week after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told his colleagues he intended to block every single appeals court nominee for the remainder of President Obama’s term, he is getting criticism from an unexpected source.

American Bar Association President Bill Robinson, a major Republican donor and Obama critic sent a letter this week to McConnell and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) encouraging the Republicans to end their obstruction of three appellate judges.

Robinson wrote that the group has “grave concern” about the number of judicial vacancies urged them to schedule floor votes on “pending, noncontroversial circuit court nominees before July and on district court nominees who have strong bipartisan support on a weekly basis thereafter.”

He wrote:

Three of the four circuit court nominees pending on the Senate floor are consensus nominees who have received overwhelming approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Both William Kayatta, Jr. of Maine, nominated to the First Circuit, and Robert Bacharach of Oklahoma, nominated to the Tenth Circuit, have the staunch support of their Republican senators. Richard Taranto, nominated to the Federal Circuit, enjoys strong bipartisan support, including the endorsement of noted conservative legal scholars. All three nominees also have stellar professional qualifications and each has been rated unanimously “well-qualified” by the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary.

With a growing number of vacancies on the federal bench, McConnell should recognize what Robinson and Chief Justice John Roberts have recognized as a judicial crisis and allow President Obama’s judicial nominees the same up-or-down votes he himself said were required by the U.S. Constitution during the George W. Bush administration.

When Mitt Romney outlined his ideas about immigration policy at a Latino conference in Florida, he endorsed removing the cap on visas for the spouses and children of lawful permanent residents. This measure would allow the more than 300,000 people who are waiting for a family-sponsored green card to skip the years-long wait for a visa under a Romney presidency. “We will exempt from caps the spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents. And we will eliminate other forms of bureaucratic red tape that keep families from being together,” he told the crowd at the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials conference.

This is not a new idea — Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez (NJ) has championed this provision as part of a broader comprehensive immigration reform bill. But, as Menendez pointed out in a statement after Romney’s speech, Republicans have “failed to endorse” the idea of allowing more family visas. “I’ve reached out to Republicans to help me fix our legal immigration system but unfortunately to date, Republicans continue to oppose reforms to our family immigration system,” Menendez said.

Indeed, no Republican co-sponsored Menendez’s immigration proposal that would expand the number of family visas. And when the senator’s office has reached out to Republicans to compromise on the provision Romney mentioned, Republicans rejected the olive branch, a staff member told ThinkProgress.

ThinkProgress reached out to Republicans on the House and Senate Judiciary committees to see if they would support Romney’s proposal. In response, House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) said in a statement Romney is “right to recognize that immigration reform needs to be geared towards bolstering our economy and job creation,” but did not comment on the GOP candidate’s visa expansion proposal.

As an Associated Press fact check of Romney’s speech points out, Romney would need Congress’ help to expand the limit if he were president. But after failing to support legislative attempts to increase the limit, it’s unlikely Republicans will jump on board now simply because Romney has suggested it.

Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled that the Fair Sentencing Act applies to people convicted before the act was passed but sentenced afterwards. The Fair Sentencing Act, signed into law by President Obama in 2010, was designed to reduce the disparity between the mandatory minimums for crack cocaine offenses as compared to powder cocaine offenses.

The decision failed to follow the pattern of most recent criminal justice cases; it was decided by a vote of 5-4 but in this case Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with “liberals” on the court. Reuters notes:

Writing the court’s majority opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer said Congress intended the law’s more lenient penalties to apply to offenders who committed their crimes before August 3, 2010, but were sentenced after that date. [...]

In the opinion, Breyer said applying the more lenient penalties to all those sentenced after August 3, 2010, made it possible to foresee a reasonably smooth transition under new federal guidelines calling for lower sentences involving crack cocaine.

The court’s decision could affect thousands of defendants who were sentenced under the old, harsher guidelines. Prior to the Fair Sentencing Act, it took 100 grams of powder cocaine to trigger the same minimum sentence as one gram of crack cocaine. The Fair Sentencing Act reduced the disparity from 100-to-one to 18-to-one.

Even under the new guidelines the mandatory minimum disparity continues to have a racially discrimination impact, because most powder cocaine users are white, while most crack cocaine users are black. When the Fair Sentencing Act was passed, black Americans made up roughly 13 percent of the population and 14 percent of monthly illegal drug users, but made up 80 percent of people convicted of a federal crack cocaine offense.

Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, hailed the ruling, saying: “[t]oday’s decision marks another step toward racial fairness.”

–Alex Brown

One of the most troubling aspects of Gov. Rick Scott’s (R-FL) likely illegal attempt to purge people his administration said were non-citizen voters from the voter rolls was the error-riddled list of alleged non-citizens on which it relied. Though the Scott administration told election supervisors that it had a list of “sure-fire” non-citizens, hundreds proved to be naturalized — or even natural-born U.S. citizens. A new voter purge effort in Georgia is running into the same problem: bad data.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that after a state-level investigation, Fulton County, Georgia identified at least 2,400 voters it believed to be registered to vote at vacant lots. Like with the Florida purge, county elections officials began sending letters to those voters to determine whether they lived at those address. Unfortunately, as with Florida, they ran into a major problem:

State Sen. Vincent Fort, D-Atlanta, has cried foul, citing the county’s embarrassment when it sent letters to residents of a senior high-rise earlier this month telling them that their building doesn’t exist and that, to prove otherwise, they needed to show up for a hearing. Elections Director Sam Westmoreland apologized, but Fort said the error proves his process is flawed.

Like with Florida, this purge apparently comes within 90 days of a federal election — likely putting it in conflict with provisions of the National Voter Registration Act. Like with parts of Florida, Georgia is covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, meaning this move could require pre-clearance from the U.S. Department of Justice. Like with Florida, the elections department said it was acting on a request from the office of Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp (R). And, like with Florida, this purge could disproportionately affect minority voters — given the racial diversity of Fulton County.

Westmoreland conceded that about half of the people on the list have already responded and shown that they indeed live at the addresses they claim. Fort notes that many of the remaining 1,200 people could also still be legitimate voters.