On Tuesday, the White House indicated that it will comply with a Second Circuit decision and publicly release a copy of the secret legal memo authorizing the killing of American citizens overseas with drone strikes. This news comes on the heels of the looming confirmation vote for First Circuit Court of Appeals nominee David Barron. As discussed in an earlier post, this memo was authored by Mr. Barron. After it became clear that withholding this memo would likely cost Barron his confirmation, the White House is attempting to sway hesitant Democratic senators by producing the document. However, Barron must still jump the hurdle of the content of this memo.

Attorney General Eric Holder will hold a press conference today in Washington to announce major law enforcement action. Interestingly, a bold notice appears at the bottom of the press release for this event reading:

David Barron’s appointment to the First Circuit Court of Appeals is detrimental to the integrity of the judiciary for three reasons. First, during his time with the Justice Department, Barron wrote the opinion justifying the drone killing of an American Citizen without due process, Anwar al-Awlaki. Second, he has long advocated for the courts to be used to justify the expansion of government regulatory authority. Third, both Republican and Democratic Senators oppose his nomination.

Tennessee officials have uncovered clear evidence of voter fraud so significant that they may refuse to certify the election. The fraudulent voters had already cast their absentee ballots before they also decided to appear at the polls on Election Day. The election worker for Davidson County was fired in the wake of this revelation, and Tennessee Election Commissioner Mark Goins has recommended referring the fraudulent voters to prosecutors.

Ask noted election law professor Rick Hasen about political corruption and he might tell you a story. On the day McCutcheon v. FEC came out, he spoke at a California legal luncheon. When he quoted the Citizens United majority’s definition of political corruption (or its appearance), the audience laughed it up.  

          Distinguished committee members, thank you for the opportunity to address you regarding data in elections. I am a former Virginia election official and co-author and Editor of a recent report from the Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) reviewing  the Presidential Commission on Election Administration’s (PCEA) report and providing additional suggestions to improve election administration in the United States.

The Republican National Lawyers Association joined a coalition of groups in opposing David Barron to be a judge on the First Circuit.  Barron’s nomination has drawn widespread criticism from the left (ACLU) and right-of-center groups.  An excerpt from the letter:

At the RNC meeting in Memphis last week, RNC General Counsel, RNC Committeeman from Tennessee, and RNLA Vice Chair John Ryder made a successful amendment to the RNC rules for the party to take control of the Republican Presidential Debate process in 2016:

Al Sharpton committed vote fraud back in his first days in politics and is now the leading vote fraud denier.   One of the pair of New Black Panther Party members who was waving a Billy-club and intimating voters was not only spared prosecution at the last minute by Eric Holder’s Justice Department, he was rewarded by being elected a local Democrat Party Official.  Melowese Richardson who was convicted of vote fraud was never the less given an ovation as a hero at a liberal political rally. 

In a fit of hubris only an academic could muster, law professor Zephyr Teachout recently mocked Justice Roberts’s acknowledgement in McCutcheon v. FEC that the line between influence and quid pro quo corruption can at times seem blurry. As she derisively paraphrased, “In other words, there is no line, respect the line.” McCutcheon particularly distresses academics like Teachout because of the forceful way the majority limited political corruption to quid pro quo exchanges (or their appearance).