Legal Battles on Voting May Prove a Critical Issue in Election

In the last few weeks, nearly a dozen decisions in federal and state courts on early voting, provisional ballots and voter identification requirements have driven the rules in conflicting directions, some favoring Republicans demanding that voters show more identification to guard against fraud and others backing Democrats who want to make voting as easy as possible.

The most closely watched cases — in the swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania — will see court arguments again this week, with the Ohio dispute possibly headed for a request for emergency review by the Supreme Court.

In Wisconsin, the home state of the Republican vice-presidential candidate, Representative Paul D. Ryan, the attorney general has just appealed to the State Supreme Court on an emergency basis to review two rulings barring its voter ID law. But even if all such cases are settled before Nov. 6 — there are others in Florida, Iowa and South Carolina — any truly tight race will most likely generate post-election litigation that could delay the final result.

“In any of these states there is the potential for disaster,” said Lawrence Norden of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. “You have close elections and the real possibility that people will say their votes were not counted when they should have been. That’s the nightmare scenario for the day after the election.”

In the 2000 presidential election, a deadlock over ballot design and tallying in parts of Florida led the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, to stop a recount of ballots, which led to George W. Bush defeating Al Gore. Since then, both parties have focused on voting procedures.

The Obama campaign, for example, brought suit in Ohio over its reduction of early voting weekends used more by blacks than other groups.

Republicans have expressed concern over what they call voter integrity. They say they fear that registration drives by liberal and community groups have bloated voter rolls with the dead and the undocumented and have created loose monitoring of who votes and low public confidence in the system. They have instituted voter identification rules, cut back on early voting and sought to purge voter lists by comparing them with others, including those of the Department of Homeland Security.

Judicial Watch, a conservative organization aimed at reducing voter fraud, says it has found that voter rolls last year in 12 states seemed to contain an ineligible number of voting-age residents when compared with 2010 census data. It is suing both Indiana and Ohio for failing to clean up their rolls in keeping with their obligations under the National Voter Registration Act.

Democrats worry about what they call voter suppression. They say that voter fraud is largely a myth and that the goal of the Republican-led laws and lawsuits is to reduce voting by minorities, the poor and the young, who tend to vote more for Democrats.

At the Democratic National Convention in North Carolina on Thursday, Representative John Lewis of Georgia expressed his party’s view on voter-related Republican-led laws when he compared them to poll taxes and literacy tests used to prevent blacks from voting in an earlier era.

“Today, it is unbelievable that there are Republican officials still trying to stop some people from voting,” he said. “They are changing the rules, cutting polling hours and imposing requirements intended to suppress the vote.”

Courts have taken a mixed view of the two sides’ claims. Voter ID laws have been both upheld as fair and struck down as discriminatory. In Pennsylvania, a state judge upheld the voter ID law, and the State Supreme Court will hear appeal arguments on Thursday.

Elsewhere recently, Democrats have won more than they have lost, but appeals are forthcoming. A federal court agreed with the Justice Department that Texas’ voter ID law was discriminatory and also struck down the state’s curtailment of voter registration; in Ohio, early voting has been restored and rules restricting voter registration drives have been struck down. The Ohio case is under appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit under expedited review. Texas will also appeal but not in time to affect this election. A Justice Department challenge to South Carolina’s voter ID law is in federal court.

In Florida, a federal court ruled last month that a year-old state law that reduced the number of early voting days to 8 from 12 could not be enforced in 5 of the 67 counties that are covered under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. But the court suggested that extending the hours of voting over the eight-day period in those five counties would satisfy the federal requirements. Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican, was able to persuade election officials in four of the counties to extend their daily hours, but the supervisor of elections in Monroe County, which includes the Florida Keys, refused, saying that the county would maintain an early voting period of 12 days.

One issue that is likely to lead to lawsuits after Election Day is that of provisional ballots. Under federal law, anyone whose identity or voting precinct is in doubt can ask for a provisional ballot at any polling station and then has a number of days to return with the required documentation to make that vote count.

Lizette Alvarez contributed reporting.

View the original article here

Republicans Apologetic After Raising Issue of Obama's Birthplace

Representative Mike Coffman of Colorado apologized at length on Wednesday for reviving unsubstantiated claims that President Obama was not born in the United States.

Although Mr. Coffman had issued a statement on May 16 expressing regret for remarks he said were misstatements, he faced continued pressure to explain why he told donors at a May 12 campaign fund-raiser that he didn’t know whether Mr. Obama was born in the United States and that the president was “not an American.”

In a video posted Tuesday by the NBC affiliate in Denver, Mr. Coffman declined to clarify his comments several times when pressed to do so by a reporter, saying repeatedly, “I stand by my statement. I misspoke, and I apologize.”

He relented in an opinion piece published Wednesday on The Denver Post Web site, where he wrote that his remarks were “boneheaded and inappropriate.”

“I have always viewed this matter as not only baseless, but as a distraction from the real issues facing our country. I believe that today,” he wrote.

Mr. Coffman also backed away from the part of his initial statement in which he maintained doubts about Mr. Obama’s view of America, saying the president did not believe in American exceptionalism.

“The president and I disagree on many issues — his approach to health care, jobs and energy independence, to name a few,” Mr. Coffman wrote. “But disagreeing on these issues was not license for me to question his devotion to our country.”

“I believe President Obama loves this country and wakes up every morning trying to do what is best for our nation, even if I disagree with his approach. To question the president’s devotion to our country based on the fact that we disagree over policy issues was wrong of me and I am sorry.”

The opinion piece was published on the same day Ken Bennett, Arizona’s secretary of state, apologized for any embarrassment he might have caused the state by requesting verification in March that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. Mr. Bennett is the Arizona co-chairman of Mitt Romney‘s presidential campaign and is exploring a run for governor in 2014.

Doubts about Mr. Obama’s birthplace have persisted among some conservatives despite the release in April 2011 of his long-form birth certificate. The White House has also made the document available online.

Mr. Coffman isn’t the first embattled Republican from a swing state to raise the so-called birther issue in the 2012 election cycle. Representatives Cliff Stearns of Florida and Vicky Hartzler of Missouri have publicly questioned Mr. Obama’s citizenship in recent months, only to apologize later. And The Charlotte Observer recently retracted an endorsement for Jim Pendergraph, who is running to replace Representative Sue Myrick in North Carolina’s Ninth Congressional District, after he raised doubts about Mr. Obama’s birthplace.

When asked about the repeated episodes, Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio said, “The Speaker has told his members repeatedly that this year is going to be a referendum on the president’s economic policies and that’s where our focus should remain.”

View the original article here

On the Trail, Romney Not Eager to Engage on Gay Marriage Issue

Jae C. Hong/Associated PressMitt Romney spoke to the overflow area at a campaign event on Thursday in Omaha.

OMAHA – Mitt Romney rarely passes on an opportunity to respond to President Obama or the actions of the White House. But that is precisely what he did here on Thursday.

As Mr. Romney addressed hundreds of supporters while campaigning in Nebraska, one of the nation’s most reliably Republican states, the topic of same-sex marriage did not cross his lips. He urged voters to focus on health care, the expansion of government and the country’s debt burdens.

“I’m concerned about where we’re headed with this president,” said Mr. Romney, whose message echoed Republican leaders back in Washington who were intent on not becoming distracted by the president’s newfound declaration of support for same-sex marriage.

Since becoming the presumptive Republican nominee, Mr. Romney has struggled to keep the campaign conversation focused squarely on the economy. His economic speeches have been overshadowed by a series of unrelated events, including the anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s killing and now, the gay marriage debate.

In a 10-minute speech along the Missouri River at Rick’s Café Boatyard and during a separate luncheon fund-raising event, Mr. Romney railed against the administration on a variety of topics. Marriage did not make his list.

But during a Thursday interview on the Fox News Channel, as well as in a series of local television interviews, the subject could not be avoided. He said that he “respects” the president’s decision and acknowledged differing viewpoints on gay marriage, adding, “This is something you can’t really convince someone about.”

As the president and his re-election team celebrated and sought to rally campaign donors to contribute money in wake of the gay marriage announcement, Mr. Romney said, “I don’t think the matter of marriage is a fund-raising matter.” And he implored voters to avoid distractions from “shiny objects” held up by Mr. Obama and his advisers.

“You have positions. You describe what they are,” Mr. Romney said in the Fox News interview. “Hopefully, people are focused on the major issues of the day.”

In the television interview, he called the marriage issue “tender and sensitive,” and renewed his objection to same-sex marriage. He called for “a national standard to define marriage between a man and a woman.” He said that he supported allowing gay couples to adopt children, but said that he did not view the gay rights cause as a civil rights issue.

In a half-dozen interviews with Republicans who came to see Mr. Romney, not a single person voiced an objection at his decision not to dwell on the issue of same-sex marriage. They said the election would be decided on the economy, health care and Mr. Obama’s first term.

“It’s none of my business. We don’t need to talk about it,” said Mo Birkel, 70, a retired custodian from nearby Papillion, Neb., when asked about gay marriage. “I can’t say if I’m for it or against it because I don’t know what my grandkids will be.”

Hal Daub, a former member of Congress from Nebraska and an enthusiastic supporter of Mr. Romney, said that it was wise for Republicans to avoid falling into what he called a “trap being set by Democrats.” He said that he hoped Republican activists followed party leaders and did not become distracted by gay marriage debate.

“There is a more tolerant viewpoint in the Republican Party,” Mr. Daub said. “You can see that here in Nebraska.”

View the original article here

Rubio's 'Dream Act Light' Jumbles Immigration Issue - Vermont Public Radio

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., the son of Cuban immigrants, has urged his fellow conservatives to soften their rhetoric on illegal immigration. Above, he makes a campaign stop with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Monday in Aston, Pa.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio spent the week in the spotlight as the latest potential running mate for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. The Hispanic lawmaker, anointed as the party's best hope for appealing to more Latino voters, came loaded for bear — rolling out an alternative to the Democrats' Dream Act.

Rubio has released few details of his plan to address illegal immigration, and says he wants to introduce a bill in the Senate in June. But, like the Democrat-backed version defeated by Senate Republicans in 2010, the legislation would help young people brought to the U.S. as children stay in the country legally if they attend college or serve in the military. By most estimates, between 800,000 and 1.2 million people would be eligible.

The key distinction between the Rubio and Democratic plans is in how people would be legalized. The original act would put people on a path to citizenship. Rubio's plan would stop short by issuing non-immigrant visas allowing recipients to remain in the U.S. for college or military service.

Rubio's critics say his plan would create a permanent second class of people unable to obtain the full rights of citizenship. Supporters, however, say visa recipients could still apply for citizenship through the existing process, which can take a decade or longer.

In contrast, Democrats say, their plan would naturalize people as citizens far sooner.

Rubio's Evolution On The Issue

Rubio's move is a departure from the hard line on illegal immigration he took while running for the Senate in 2010, angering many Hispanic groups who had hoped he would help push Republicans toward a pro-citizenship stance.

Rubio, 40, the son of Cuban immigrants, ran as a Tea Party favorite and avowed conservative. Since then, he has softened his position, having publicly urged fellow Republicans to tone down their hostile rhetoric about illegal immigrants before weighing in with his proposal.

With his considerable political talents, and hailing from an important presidential battleground state, Rubio has emerged as his party's most prominent Latino.

Hispanics' rapid population growth will give them a pivotal role in the 2012 elections, particularly in some battleground states. As a vice presidential candidate, or perhaps in some other prominent role in the Romney campaign, Rubio could help the Republican Party siphon Hispanic votes from the Democrats.

The political crosscurrents at play are dizzying. People on all sides of the immigration debate are closely watching Rubio assume the forbidding task of carefully crafting a proposal that meets several objectives: help repair the GOP brand among Hispanics; appeal to non-Hispanic independent voters who favor a path to citizenship; and upend President Obama and the Democrats' advantage on the issue, all without angering conservatives.

Here's a sampling of the wide range of opinions about Rubio's version of the Dream Act. This story continues below the graphic.

Obama seemed to derisively allude to the Rubio plan in a recent interview with the Spanish-language network Telemundo: "This notion that somehow Republicans want to have it both ways — they want to vote against these laws and appeal to anti-immigrant sentiment ... and then they come and say, 'But we really care about these kids and we want to do something about it' — that looks like hypocrisy to me."

He's not the only presidential candidate who might feel pressure. Romney himself must consider whether to embrace Rubio's proposal and risk being lambasted again by conservatives and the Obama campaign as a flip-flopper. The last Republican presidential nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, lost to Barack Obama in part because he was unable to energize conservatives, who hadn't forgiven him for the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, which would have set a path to citizenship.

So far, reactions to the Rubio proposal have been mixed, even unexpected. For instance, some immigrant advocates who usually side with the Democrats on the issue have enthusiastically gotten behind Rubio, even though his plan appears to fall short of the original Dream Act. Their decision was made easier by their frustrations over Obama's failure to get the original act through Congress, as well as the record number of deportations processed by his administration.

View the original article here

Rubio's 'Dream Act Light' Jumbles Immigration Issue - NPR

Jessica Kourkounis/Getty Images

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., the son of Cuban immigrants, has urged his fellow conservatives to soften their rhetoric on illegal immigration. Above, he makes a campaign stop with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Monday in Aston, Pa.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio spent the week in the spotlight as the latest potential running mate for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. The Hispanic lawmaker, anointed as the party's best hope for appealing to more Latino voters, came loaded for bear — rolling out an alternative to the Democrats' Dream Act.

Rubio has released few details of his plan to address illegal immigration, and says he wants to introduce a bill in the Senate in June. But, like the Democrat-backed version defeated by Senate Republicans in 2010, the legislation would help young people brought to the U.S. as children stay in the country legally if they attend college or serve in the military. By most estimates, between 800,000 and 1.2 million people would be eligible.

The key distinction between the Rubio and Democratic plans is in how people would be legalized. The original act would put people on a path to citizenship. Rubio's plan would stop short by issuing non-immigrant visas allowing recipients to remain in the U.S. for college or military service.

Rubio's critics say his plan would create a permanent second class of people unable to obtain the full rights of citizenship. Supporters, however, say visa recipients could still apply for citizenship through the existing process, which can take a decade or longer.

In contrast, Democrats say, their plan would naturalize people as citizens far sooner.

Rubio's Evolution On The Issue

Rubio's move is a departure from the hard line on illegal immigration he took while running for the Senate in 2010, angering many Hispanic groups who had hoped he would help push Republicans toward a pro-citizenship stance.

Rubio, 40, the son of Cuban immigrants, ran as a Tea Party favorite and avowed conservative. Since then, he has softened his position, having publicly urged fellow Republicans to tone down their hostile rhetoric about illegal immigrants before weighing in with his proposal.

With his considerable political talents, and hailing from an important presidential battleground state, Rubio has emerged as his party's most prominent Latino.

Hispanics' rapid population growth will give them a pivotal role in the 2012 elections, particularly in some battleground states. As a vice presidential candidate, or perhaps in some other prominent role in the Romney campaign, Rubio could help the Republican Party siphon Hispanic votes from the Democrats.

The political crosscurrents at play are dizzying. People on all sides of the immigration debate are closely watching Rubio assume the forbidding task of carefully crafting a proposal that meets several objectives: help repair the GOP brand among Hispanics; appeal to non-Hispanic independent voters who favor a path to citizenship; and upend President Obama and the Democrats' advantage on the issue, all without angering conservatives.

Here's a sampling of the wide range of opinions about Rubio's version of the Dream Act. This story continues below the graphic.

Obama seemed to derisively allude to the Rubio plan in a recent interview with the Spanish-language network Telemundo: "This notion that somehow Republicans want to have it both ways — they want to vote against these laws and appeal to anti-immigrant sentiment ... and then they come and say, 'But we really care about these kids and we want to do something about it' — that looks like hypocrisy to me."

He's not the only presidential candidate who might feel pressure. Romney himself must consider whether to embrace Rubio's proposal and risk being lambasted again by conservatives and the Obama campaign as a flip-flopper. The last Republican presidential nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, lost to Barack Obama in part because he was unable to energize conservatives, who hadn't forgiven him for the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, which would have set a path to citizenship.

So far, reactions to the Rubio proposal have been mixed, even unexpected. For instance, some immigrant advocates who usually side with the Democrats on the issue have enthusiastically gotten behind Rubio, even though his plan appears to fall short of the original Dream Act. Their decision was made easier by their frustrations over Obama's failure to get the original act through Congress, as well as the record number of deportations processed by his administration.

View the original article here

Attacks on Mitt Romney Over Tax Return Issue Are Unfair (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | Few presidential candidates have faced more pressure to make available their tax returns than Mitt Romney. Despite the fact Rick Santorum and Ron Paul have also not released their tax returns, as revealed in a South Carolina debate, the former Massachusetts governor is being singled out by the media. The hyperbole scrutiny of Romney's tax returns reveals bias in the part of the media.

If Romney was a salaried man with less than eight-digit figures in his bank account, he would not have faced the same pressure to release his tax returns as he is now. People love a narrative. A successful and wealthy businessman must have a lot of skeletons in his closet, and hence we need see his tax returns. Even if Romney decides to release his tax returns at this instance, the media will follow up and demand to see returns from previous years and decades.

What the media seems to forget is that they are journalists and not auditors. It is the job of the IRS to scrutinize Romney's tax returns for problems. All the media will do is scouring the Michigan native's returns for politically inexpedient details and magnifies them. The decision to release tax returns should be his to make and for the public to judge.

Legally, Romney has the right not to disclose his tax returns. Moreover, he is only a candidate and not the president. If Romney is elected to the presidency, he will likely follow traditions and release his tax returns every year of his term. The media obsession over Romney's tax returns gives the impression that presidential candidates are required to make public their returns, which is incorrect.

Ultimately, it is more prudent for Romney to release his tax returns as soon as possible to temper the controversy. To his credit, the Michigan native has indicated that he will make available his tax returns in April. Four years ago, GOP nominee John McCain also released his tax returns in April. All in all, Romney's wealth is expected to continue to be a hotly debated topic in the 2012 Republican race.

View the original article here