Hans A. von Spakovsky

Though the polls were scheduled to close at 7 p.m., long lines in Fairfax County — the most populous jurisdiction in Virginia — kept some voters waiting until 10:30 to vote last Tuesday. The reason, according to election officials, was a shortage of poll workers partially caused by the Republican majority on the county’s three-member electoral board. One of those Republicans is controversial former Federal Election Commissioner Hans A. von Spakovsky, a George W. Bush recess appointee to the Commission and prominent advocate for strict voter ID laws.

Washington Post columnist Robert McCartney reported Thursday that General Registrar Cameron Quinn (R) said a major cause of the long lines was that she had 250 fewer poll workers than in the 2008, and 28,000 more voters. But, once parties nominate elections officials, they must be first approved by Quinn’s office, next be okayed by the electoral board, and then finally be trained for several hours:

By the week before the election, Quinn’s office had not acted on Democratic nominations of about 250 elections officials, Farrell said. The office cited a lack of paperwork or other shortcomings that Farrell said had not caused such delays in previous elections.

Moreover, at the same time, 140 Democratic-nominated officials had been approved by Quinn’s office and were ready to get the okay from the Electoral Board. But the two GOP-appointed members of the three-member board chose not to hold a meeting as scheduled on the Friday before the election.

That final meeting was cancelled, over the objection of Electoral Board Chairman Seth Stark (D), by the board’s two Republicans. Hans von Spakovsky’s official rationale was that senior staff requested the cancellation as they had lost election preparation time to Hurricane Sandy.

Faifax County Board of Supervisors Chairman Sharon Bulova (D) has proposed a bipartisan commission to examine the causes of the long lines. In his story, McCartney urged that this commission “should include an aggressive look at whether the GOP’s political interest in a low Fairfax turnout contributed to the Election Day problems.”

Republicans enjoy a majority on the electoral board because Virginia’s Governor, Bob McDonnell, is a Republican. But like other Washington, D.C. suburbs, Fairfax is a Democratic-leaning county. More than 108,000 of President Obama’s less-than-150,000 vote statewide margin came from Fairfax.

Long lines plagued elections in other swing states as well, prompting President Obama to note “we have to fix that,” in his election night victory speech.

Michigan’s ban on affirmative action was struck down for a second time by a federal appeals court Thursday – this time on rehearing by the full panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

In a strong defense of minorities’ access to the political process, an eight-judge majority struck down the state constitutional amendment passed in 2006, holding that the amendment imposed a constitutionally impermissible burden on those seeking to implement a race-conscious admissions policy above and beyond the burden imposed on others seeking to change admissions criteria. Judge R. Guy Cole Jr. wrote for the majority:

A student seeking to have her family’s alumni connections considered in her application to one of Michigan’s esteemed public universities could do one of four things to have the school adopt a legacy-conscious admissions policy: she could lobby the admissions committee, she could petition the leadership of the university, she could seek to influence the school’s governing board, or, as a measure of last resort, she could initiate a statewide campaign to alter the state’s constitution. The same cannot be said for a black student seeking the adoption of a constitutionally permissible race-conscious admissions policy. That student could do only one thing to effect change: she could attempt to amend the Michigan Constitution—a lengthy, expensive, and arduous process—to repeal the consequences of Proposal 2. The existence of such a comparative structural burden undermines the Equal Protection Clause’s guarantee that all citizens ought to have equal access to the tools of political change.

The Sixth Circuit first heard the case more than a year ago, and rejected the ban under similar reasoning. As in the initial ruling, when the judges split 2-1, the full panel of judges split in the case 8-7, signaling a continuing ideological divide on the contentious issue of affirmative action.

Citing existing Supreme Court precedent, the majority in this case assumed the constitutionality of the university’s power to “even consider using race as a factor in admissions”, but this power may take a fatal blow this term when the John Roberts-led court reviews the University of Texas’ race-conscious admissions policy.

Karl Rove

The non-partisan Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed complaints Thursday with both the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) alleging that Karl Rove and his secretive Crossroads GPS violated election law and may have engaged in a criminal conspiracy to do so.

Under campaign finance law and FEC regulations, 501(c)(4) groups, like Crossroads GPS, can raise unlimited funds from wealthy individuals and corporations without having to disclose their donors. The only time donors to these secretive groups must be disclosed is when donors give more than $200 explicitly “for the purpose of furthering an independent expenditure.”

According to CREW, Rove expressly asked for and received millions of dollars in contributions specifically to fund an independent expenditure effort in support of unsuccessful Republican Ohio Senate nominee Josh Mandel:

Federal law requires any outside group that makes an independent expenditure to disclose the donors who contributed to pay for such ads. Groups like Crossroads GPS normally evade this law by claiming none of their contributions were earmarked for a specific purpose. At an August 2012 fundraiser, however, Rove said an anonymous donor gave Crossroads GPS $3 million specifically for the Ohio Senate race, and told Rove it was a “matching challenge” dependent on the group raising another $3 million for the race. Crossroads GPS ended up spending $6.36 million on independent expenditures in the Ohio race, but did not disclose any donors in nine reports the group filed with the FEC.

CREW also notes that, in a 2011 letter to the FEC, Crossroads GPS said that it “understands the applicable reporting regulations” and that, should it receive “any contributions that are required to be reported,” it would do so as required. Given this, CREW argues, the violations “were deliberate” and “are subject to criminal as well as civil penalties.”

The Rove comment in question was reported in Bloomberg Businessweek in September. That article quoted Rove as saying a donor told him “I’ll give ya’ $3 million, matching challenge,” and that “Bob Castellini, owner of the Cincinnati Reds, is helping raise the other $3 million for that one.” Crossroads GPS would end up spending just over $6 million on the Ohio Senate race.

Tara Malloy, senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, told ThinkProgress that if the allegations are true, it “seems reasonable to assume the main contributor gave for the purpose of furthering that expenditure or at least that these allegations warrant an FEC investigation.” But, she notes, the three Republican appointees on the deadlocked six-member Federal Election Commission often block enforcement efforts of this type and have previously noted a difference between contributions furthering independent expenditures in general — and contributions specifically furthering a particular independent expenditure. Even if Rove raised the money to fund independent expenditures in the Ohio Senate race, that interpretation of the rule would require proof that he discussed with them the exact ads before the donation.

Still, she observed, “The allegations are troubling… One would hope the FEC might investigate this matter.”

Crossroads GPS may also be in hot water for its apparent failure to register as a charity in Virginia, as required by law.

The Arizona Constitution limits the state’s governors to two consecutive terms. Apparently, the incumbent governor didn’t get the memo about this fact:

Brewer recently told the Arizona Republic that she’s still thinking about challenging the state constitution to run for a third term.

Her spokesman, Matthew Benson, confirmed that the state’s top executive is mulling over a decision but hasn’t made up her mind.

The Arizona Constitution limits governors to just two terms in office. But Brewer’s lawyers say the law doesn’t apply in this case because Brewer took over for Gov. Janet Napolitano in the middle or her second term.

Brewer’s lawyers are wrong. The state constitution provides that “[n]o member of the executive department shall hold that office for more than two consecutive terms. . . . No member of the executive department after serving the maximum number of terms, which shall include any part of a term served, may serve in the same office until out of office for no less than one full term.”

A South Carolina federal judge today cleared a previously blocked provision of the state’s immigration law that requires police to check the immigration status of lawfully stopped individuals if they have reason to believe the individual is in the country illegally.

U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel reconsidered his December 2011 ruling in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June allowing the similar “show me your papers” provision in Arizona’s immigration law to stand — for now. Gergel held today that he was obligated to unblock the provision in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedent, but he made clear that the high court’s decision left the door wide open for future challenges once the law goes into effect:

The Court explained that, where “[t]here is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced,” it would be “inappropriate to assume [the provision] will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law.” As a result, the Supreme Court held that enjoining the Arizona statute on the basis of a facial challenge was not proper, though the Court made a point not to “foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect.” [… ]

This litigation is only at the preliminary injunction stage, and this Court’s decision to dissolve the injunction regarding these status-checking provisions does not foreclose a future as applied challenge based upon subsequent factual and legal developments.

The upshot of Gergel’s ruling is that if an officer has proper grounds to stop somebody suspected of other criminal activity, and in the course of that stop, develops “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally, the officer is required to make “reasonable efforts” to determine that person’s immigration status. But the Supreme Court made clear in its June decision that this provision should not be used to stop people because they are suspected to be in the country illegally, nor should a officer prolong a police stop solely to determine immigration status. The Supreme Court explained:

To take one example, a person might be stopped for jaywalking in Tucson and be unable to produce identification. The first sentence of §2(B) instructs officers to make a “reasonable” attempt to verify his immigration status with ICE if there is reasonable suspicion that his presence in the United States is unlawful. The state courts may conclude that, unless the person continues to be suspected of some crime for which he may be detained by state officers, it would not be reasonable to prolong the stop for the immigration inquiry.

One of the main concerns about “show me your papers” provisions is that they will almost certainly lead officers to racially profile. This argument was not at issue in either of these decisions, but it is likely to be a basis for future challenges.

Gergel also upheld injunctions on several other provisions, including those that would make it illegal not to carry immigration papers, and criminalize transporting or housing illegal immigrants. The parts of the law left in place after Gergel’s initial ruling went into effect Jan. 1, including a provision that requires businesses to check the immigration status of new employees through a federal system. The ruling now clears the way for the state to begin police checks, at least until another lawsuit challenges that the state’s enforcement of that provision.

A new lawsuit brought by eight inmates of the Idaho Correctional Center alleges that the company is cutting back on personnel costs by partnering with violent prison gangs to help control the facility. Court documents and an investigative report issued by the state’s Department of Corrections show how guards routinely looked the other way when gang members violated basic facility rules, negotiated with gang leaders on the cell placement of new inmates, and in one instance may have even helped one group of inmates plan a violent attack on members of a rival gang.

Rather than working with corporate headquarters or local authorities to combat the growing threat of gangs, CCA officials at the prison — the state’s largest, with more than 2,000 beds — used those same gangs as a way to control the rest of the inmates and save money:

The inmates also contend that CCA officials use gang violence and the threat of gang violence as an “inexpensive device to gain control over the inmate population,” according to the lawsuit, and that housing gang members together allows the company to use fewer guards, reducing payroll costs.

“The complaint alleges that CCA fosters and develops criminal gangs,” attorney Wyatt Johnson, who along with T.J. Angstman represents the inmates, said in a statement. “Ideally, the lawsuit should force this to come to an end.”

The CCA has operated the prison in partnership with the Idaho corrections department since 2000, at the beginning of a boom period when the number of inmates detained in CCA’s private prisons nationwide climbed nearly 50 percent between 2000 and 2009. States have invited private prison corporations to run some of their facilities as a cost-cutting measure, even though recent studies show that private prisons ultimately cost states millions more than public ones.

Private prisons are also experiencing a boom in the number of corruption complaints being leveled against them. In Arizona, lawmakers passed several pieces of favorable legislation after receiving more than $60,000 from industry lobbyists, in Alabama a judge likened one private facility to a “debtors prison,” and in Pennsylvania a judge was sentenced to nearly three decades in prison after it was discovered he had sent hundreds of younger residents into a privately-run juvenile detention facility in exchange for millions of dollars in bribes from the owners of those detention centers.

Shortly after being elected to the second most important Republican position in the Senate, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) started spreading conspiracy theories. Speaking to 1290 KWFS-AM in Texas, the chief GOP vote counter claimed that the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, an attempt to regulate the international spread of weapons to deadly conflict zones, was a U.N. plot to take control of gun regulation:

I’m not for outsourcing American sovereignty to any international body, and that’s what this represents. There are a number of treaties that the Obama administration is proposing. But I’m an American citizen, I support American sovereignty and I’m not for outsourcing it to other people on gun control or any other issue …we’re gonna do everything we can to stop it.

Listen:

The Arms Trade Treaty does not in any fashion restrict American domestic sovereignty or gun ownership rights inside the USA. It 1) contains a provision acknowledging that states may have domestic constitutional protections for gun ownership, 2) can’t legally override the U.S. Supreme Court ruling protecting individual gun ownership, and 3) simply does not contain any provisions regulating the domestic (as opposed to international) arms trade.

Cornyn’s remarks underscore the growing prominence of conspiracy theories in GOP policy arguments. Former Presidential candidate Mitt Romney endorsed the Arms Trade Treaty conspiracy as well as a similar theory positing that the U.N. was attempting to regulate how Americans raise their children. The GOP platform and incoming Senator Ted Cruz (also of Texas) have both touted the notion that an international sustainable development initiative is a covert attempt to regulate American land. And this summer, a number of prominent conservatives argued that the Bureau of Labor Statistics was cooking its unemployment numbers to ensure President Obama’s reelection.

In the months since the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin drew national attention to Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law and others like it that authorize the unfettered use of deadly force in self-defense, several empirical studies have found these laws are associated with a significant increase in homicides, have a disproportionate impact on African Americans, and do not appear to deter crime at all.

But you wouldn’t know any of this from the draft report coming out of a Florida task force commissioned by Gov. Rick Scott. Following a six-month review, not one of these studies were even incorporated into the task force’s recommendation that the NRA-backed Stand Your Ground law remain largely unchanged. Instead, the recommendation states:

[A]ll persons have a fundamental right to stand their ground and defend themselves from attack with proportionate force in every place they have a lawful right to be and are conducting themselves in a lawful manner.

The task force did recommend that the Legislature review some of the law’s language to clarify what the law means for police, who can claim self-defense, and whether it encourages vigilantism. But for the most part, the recommendation stood as a strong defense of the law that arguably gives perpetrators more authority to shoot and kill than U.S. troops have in war.

The recommendation surprised few stakeholders — among the six lawmakers on the 19-member panel selected by Gov. Scott were two who helped draft the original law, another two who voted for it in 2005, and the chief sponsor of a law prohibiting doctors from asking patients about guns. Three are members of corporate front-group ALEC, which backed the law. Others who have supported gun control legislation say they were excluded from the task force.

In a column published just before the release of the task force’s findings that cites the various academic studies on “Stand Your Ground” laws, Harvard Injury Control Research Center Director David Hemenway, ironically, implores the task force not to “ignore the evidence,” writing:

I was pleased to hear that one of its monthly meetings would be devoted to scholarly research about the effects of the law since its passage in 2005. This was the Task Force’s chance to take scientific evidence into its assessment of what has understandably become an emotionally charged issue.

The Task Force asked the University of Florida to conduct research on the impact of the state’s Stand Your Ground law. Not surprisingly the researchers were unable to draw strong conclusions given the data and the short time frame they were allowed. But frighteningly, the Task Force seemed to take the researchers’ incomplete report as evidence that Stand Your Ground is a good law. Task Force member and Stand Your Ground bill sponsor Rep. Dennis Baxley even went so far as to assert that the data supported his contention that the law is not associated with an increase in violent crime. Contrary to that claim, the best available research evidence indicates that Stand Your Ground laws are dangerous, with few redeeming benefits to society.

The task force still has until March to submit its final recommendations to the Legislature, although the incoming House speaker has already said he would not support major changes to the law.