Secretary of State Scott Gessler (R-CO)

The Denver District Attorney and and Colorado’s Independent Ethics Commission will investigate allegations that Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler (R) improperly used taxpayer dollars to travel to a Republican election law event hosted by a pro-voter suppression group and to his party’s national convention.

Gessler was elected in 2010 on a platform of fighting “election fraud” — a largely non-existent problem — and of guaranteeing “fair and open elections.” But, the Coloradoan reports, he traveled in July to a Republican National Lawyers Association election law conference which included a panel presentation on the role of states and voter ID laws and charged $1,105.17 for the trip to his office budget. He also requested and received reimbursement from his office’s discretionary fund to pay for his travel to the Republican National Convention in Tampa in August. Colorado forbids such expenditures for personal or political purposes and violations could constitute a misdemeanor.

The Associated Press reported Tuesday:

Gessler’s office responded to the announcement of the review Monday by saying, “We welcome a thorough review.”

Colorado Ethics Watch filed a complaint last month against Gessler that alleged he misappropriated public funds because he was reimbursed for attending political events.

Independent Ethics Commission Jane Feldman says the amount of money in question is $1,570.51. She says Gessler could be fined up to double that amount if he is found to have violated rules.

The Denver District Attorney’s office has launched a formal criminal investigation.

The Republican National Lawyers Association claims its mission is “advancing open, fair and honest elections,” but has strongly advocated for strict voter ID laws to combat “voter fraud.”

When actually in Colorado, Gessler has spent much of his time pushing a failed voter purge which found at most 35 cases of non-citizen voting out of the 2,401,462 total votes cast in the state’s 2008 presidential election — less than 0.0015 percent of the vote.

In spite of a court ruling that photo ID is not required to vote in Pennsylvania this election cycle, new reports are emerging of rampant misinformation about the law.

The October 2 ruling said that poll-workers can ask for photo ID, but cannot turn people away because they do not have it. The Philadelphia Inquirer is reporting that numerous polling sites are handing out information stating that photo ID is required and that poll workers are falsely stating ID is required to vote. In addition, two mailers were reportedly sent out this week that provide the same misinformation. Residents in Harrisburg, Pa. received this mailer:

The Pennsylvania Department of State produced the mailer, and it was sent out in September before the court largely blocked the state’s voter suppression law. But state department spokesman Ron Ruman said his department did not send out the bogus mailer that Harrisburg voters are receiving now. “These mailings all were sent between Sept. 17 and 24″,” Ruman told philly.com. “We are looking into this, but the Department of State did not send these cards at this time.” and said that poll-workers can ask for photo ID, but cannot turn people away because they do not have it

BoldProgressives.org is reporting that others in Pennsylvania received this mailer:

The state has been slow to correct misinformation about the law since the court blocked the voter ID requirement. But in addition to lingering advertisements that were not removed from before the ruling, the state issued newly “corrected” ads that feature an image of a photo ID with the tiny words “This election day, if you have it,” followed by the huge and capitalized phrase “Show it.” A judge declined to block these ads.

Also today in Allegheny County, a judge issued an order to halt electioneering by Republicans who were stopping people outside a polling location and asking them for identification. This activity outside the polls would be illegal regardless of the state’s photo ID law, but the “chilling effect” on voting cited by the judge is particularly significant because their activities wrongly suggest that ID is required to vote.

Coverage leading up to the vote Tuesday on California’s ballot initiative to eliminate the death penalty has highlighted one counterintuitive source of opposition to the measure: death row inmates.

According to one informal survey of inmates in the state, most of those who responded oppose Proposition 34. But it’s not because they are in favor of death sentences – it’s because being on death row is the best way to get decent legal representation, and the only way they think they have any chance of getting their conviction overturned. The Los Angeles Times explains:

If Proposition 34 passes, death row inmates will be merged into the general prison population and have their sentences commuted to life without parole. … convicted murderers, like other felons, would still be entitled to appeal their convictions in state court with government-paid lawyers.

But except in rare circumstances, they would not be given lawyers to investigate and file habeas corpus petitions, which raise evidence the trial court did not hear and which can be heard in federal court once state appeals are exhausted.

Although police officers who support the death penalty are citing the opinions of these inmates as evidence that the death penalty should be maintained, the inmates’ opposition to Prop. 34 says little about their position on the penalty itself, and much about the sad state of our system for providing constitutionally guaranteed representation to indigent defendants.

In states around the country, the system is drastically underfunded, with public defenders carrying such massive caseloads that they cannot allocate needed time to investigate any given case and are incentivized to encourage plea deals, because they are not physically capable of taking the vast majority of these cases to trial. With DNA and other scientific evidence revealing that the rates of wrongful convictions are higher than we ever imagined, this representation is particularly critical to ensuring that the innocent are not found guilty. 

It was recognition of this deficit that led President Obama to create a new Access to Justice Initiative in the Department of Justice. As Attorney General Eric Holder explained in a 2010 address to the National Symposium on Indigent Defense:

I would argue that our criminal justice system is one of the most distinctive aspects of our national character. And I also would argue that it is one of the most praiseworthy. That said, we must face facts. And the facts prove that we have a serious problem on our hands.

Nearly half a century has passed since the Supreme Court’s decision in Gideon v. Wainwright. The Court followed with other decisions recognizing the right to counsel in juvenile and misdemeanor cases. Today, despite the decades that have gone by, these cases have yet to be fully translated into reality.

…Too often, defenders carry huge caseloads that make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to fulfill their legal and ethical responsibilities to their clients. Lawyers buried under these caseloads often can’t interview their clients properly, file appropriate motions, conduct fact investigations, or spare the time needed to ask and apply for additional grant funding. And the problem is about more than just resources. In some parts of the country, the primary institutions for the delivery of defense to the poor – I’m talking about basic public defender systems – simply do not exist.

It is a reflection of this reality that death row inmates would opt to risk their life for a chance at exoneration. But it should not only be those who receive the worst possible sentence who have a fair shot at justice. Our indigent defense system is in need of drastic reform, starting with the collection of better and more complete data on the patchwork of state approaches. At least with the death penalty abolished, those innocent inmates who are fortunate enough to be exonerated will be alive to see it.

Volunteers with True the Vote, a Tea Party group that claims it is trying to fight voter fraud by challenging the right of voters to vote, may have committed fraud themselves. Plunderbund, an Ohio-based political blog, reported Monday that members of the group attempted to sign up as poll observers in African American-heavy precincts in central Ohio, but may have forged signatures to do so.

While local candidates officials had authorized members of the group to serve as designated observers on forms filed in October, five of the six Franklin County candidates had withdrawn permission to use their signatures prior to the submission of this week’s forms. According to one candidate, the True the Vote volunteers simply “forged” her name onto the document — possibly a 5th degree felony.

According to the report:

The forms have been rejected unanimously by all members (Rs and Ds) on the board. True the Vote observers will not be allowed in Franklin County polling locations tomorrow. Poll monitoring organizations expect they may still be stationed outside of polling locations. Board member Zachary Manifold told us he was ”amazed that a group that goes to such extreme lengths to claim voting fraud in Ohio would knowingly forge or misuse signatures to try to gain access to Franklin County polling locations.”

The U.S. Department of Justice is monitoring Franklin County — home to Columbus, Ohio — to enforce federal voting rights laws and “protect the rights of all citizens to access the ballot on Election Day.”

Numerous studies have shown in-person voter fraud is virtually non-existent in the United States. But attempts to suppress the vote by intimidation and challenges to legitimate voters by groups like True the Vote are a serious threat to what President Ronald Reagan called “the crown jewel of American liberties” — the right to vote.