Ohio Election Officials Seek To Block Voter Challenging Rule: At SCOTUSblog, Lyle Denniston posts on an application for a stay filed last night in the Supreme Court, asking the Supreme Court to put a hold on a federal judge's order requiring election officials to verify voter registration rolls across the state. Denniston also provides links to the application, Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party, et al., 08A332, and its attached exhibit. The federal court order imposed a Friday deadline for Ohio’s Secretary of State to reprogram a statewide database. Republicans had complained that the state had failed to verify voter data as required by the federal Help America Vote Act. Tuesday, the Sixth Circuit refused to block the order. Rick Hansen at Election Law Blog posts on some thoughts of the en banc opinion. Ohio's application for a stay argues the order requires the Secretary of State's staff, and 88 county election boards to divert their attention from preparing for the Nov. 4 election, to a large undertaking to refashion the statewide voter database. According to Denniston, "Justice Stevens may act without asking state GOP officials to respond, or wait until there is a response. He also has the option of sharing a decision with his Court colleagues, or acting alone."

Last Night's Debate And A Poll On The Role of Supreme Court Judges: Orin Kerr at Volokh Conspiracy blogs that a statement made last night by Barack Obama about the type of Justice he would appoint brought to mind this interesting poll from the Rasmussen Reports. One of the questions in the survey: "Should the Supreme Court make decisions based on what's written in the Constitution and legal precedents or should it be guided mostly by a sense of fairness and justice?" drew responses reflecting a sharp difference between McCain and Obama supporters. "While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree."

Impeachment Counsel Appointed For Inquiry Into U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Porteous: David Ingram at Blog of the Legal Times has this post about a formidable new foe for Judge Porteous. Ingram reports the House Judiciary Committee has appointed Alan Baron, a partner in the D.C. office of Holland & Knight, for his impeachment inquiry. Baron was the House’s special impeachment counsel when lawmakers voted to impeach then-federal judges Alcee Hastings and Walter Nixon in the late 1980s. Judge Porteous is currently suspended from serving in the eastern district of Louisiana. Accusations against him include soliciting and receiving cash from lawyers with cases pending before him and committing perjury in his personal bankruptcy case. For more on Federal Judges Under Investigation check out Brooks Holland's post at CrimProf Blog discussing U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent's indictment for alleged federal sex crimes. Corey Rayburn Young at SexCrimes also has this post on Judge Kent.