Recently in Politics Category

Article II, section 4 of the California Constitution provides:  "The Legislature shall ... provide for the disqualification of electors while mentally incompetent or imprisoned or on parole for the conviction of a felony."

Clear enough, right?  Traditionally, people sentenced to imprisonment for a felony went to state prison, while those sentenced to imprisonment for misdemeanors went to county jail.  With California's "realignment" fiasco, the lower level felons are going to county jail, but they are obviously still "imprisoned ... for conviction of a felony."

Well, it wasn't obvious to the ACLU and various other groups who thought they saw an opportunity to increase the number of people who will reliably vote for soft-on-crime candidates.  They asked the Court of Appeal for the First District (SF region) to order the Secretary of State to let the "realigned" felons vote.  They urged the court not to interpret the Constitution and laws "literally," i.e., to mean what they plainly say.

The court didn't buy it.  Yesterday it summarily dismissed the case, All of Us or None v. Bowen, A134775.

Rachel Weiner has this post at the WaPo's political blog.  It was so wild I had to double-check to make sure I wasn't actually reading The Onion.

Keith Judd, who is serving a 17 1/2-year prison sentence for extortion at the Federal Correctional Institution in Texarkana, Texas, took 41 percent of the vote in West Virginia's Democratic primary Tuesday night -- 72,000 votes to Obama's 106,000. He would qualify for convention delegates, if anyone had signed up to be a Judd delegate. (No one did.)

Some conservatives and libertarians have bemoaned what they call the criminalization of everything, with particular emphasis on the growth of federal criminal investigations.  For the most part, I have been somewhat skeptical of these concerns.  While it's true that the criminal law, like every aspect of government, seems to know nothing except how to get bigger, I have thought that the answer to this problem is for people simply to behave as they were taught by their parents: Don't steal stuff, don't lie to those with legitimate authority, don't try to get money by hardcore or softcore deceit, stay away from drugs and settle your differences without violence.  It's not that hard.

Local authorities said the incidence of rape in Missoula, a western Montana city of 86,000 people, is on par with similarly sized college towns, and the county's chief prosecutor questioned the justice department's rationale for its inquiry. 

The investigation comes in the midst of an election year in which women's issues have moved to the forefront as candidates seek to burnish their credentials among female voters.

The justice department probe will examine the inner workings of the university's public safety office, the Missoula Police Department and the Missoula County Attorney's Office.

Rape is an awful crime and, in the most extreme instances, should be death-eligible, our Supreme Court notwithstanding. But why rape in Missoula, Montana warrants federal intervention is something of a mystery  --  a mystery, that is, unless one recalls that Mr. Holder's boss is trying to make the fictitious "War on Women" a political issue for November's showdown.

Maybe DOJ should bring in another liberal huckster who wanted to enlist rape to help him win re-election.  Mike Nifong, your career's not quite over. 

The Quinnipiac Poll asked 2,577 registered voters nationwide:

47. As you may know, in 2010 the state of Arizona passed a law that requires police to verify the legal status of someone they have already stopped or arrested if they suspect that the person is in the country illegally. Do you approve or disapprove of Arizona's immigration law?

                Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Wht    Blk    Hsp

Approve         68%    92%    46%    72%    74%    55%    47%
Disapprove      27      5     47     24     22     37     49
DK/NA            5      3      7      4      4      7      5

Given the vehemence of the attack on this law by leaders of the Democratic Party and the claim that it is anti-Hispanic, the fact that both Democrats and Hispanics are almost evenly split on it is interesting.  Thanks to Eugene Volokh for the tip.

Gonzalez v. Arizona, No. 08-17094, decided today by USCA9:

Proposition 200 requires prospective voters in Arizona to provide proof of U.S. citizenship in order to register to vote, see Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-166(F) (the "registration provision"), and requires registered voters to show identification to cast a ballot at the polls, see Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-579(A) (the "polling place provision"). This appeal raises the questions whether Proposition 200 violates § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1973, is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth or Twenty-fourth Amendments to the Constitution, or is void as inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973gg et seq. We uphold Proposition 200's requirement that voters show identification at the polling place, but conclude that the NVRA supersedes Proposition 200's registration provision as that provision is applied to applicants using the National Mail Voter Registration Form (the "Federal Form") to register to vote in federal elections.

Rasmussen Poll reports that American voters overwhelmingly support a requirement to show ID for voting, with 73% rejecting the argument that the requirement is discriminatory.  A stub of their report is here.  Unfortunately, the full report is behind the paywall.

In the April 3 D.C. election, a man walked into a precinct, asked if they had an Eric Holder (being careful not to actually say or sign that he was Holder), and was nearly given Holder's ballot.  WaPo story here.  Project Veritas video here.

The birther suit has reached SCOTUS as Keys v. Obama, No. 11-1225.

I would offer to bet a beer that certiorari will be denied, but maybe there's something in the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 about that, so I won't.

Blog of the Legal Times has AG Holder's response to Judge Jerry Smith's question on whether the Administration still believes in judicial review.  As directed, it is three pages (well, 2 1/3), single spaced.  As expected, it is filled with well-established and mostly uncontroversial stuff about judicial review, deference, yada, yada, yada.

Then there is the last sentence:  "The President's remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein."

I've already said in a previous post and a comment that I think the president's original statement was preposterous but also that Judge Smith was out of line.  I won't comment any further.  Cut loose in the comments, if you like.

In Minnesota, the legislature put the question of requiring voters to show ID on the November ballot.  Rachel E. Stassen-Berger has this story at the Star-Tribune.

I expect that the deceased vote will be 100% against this proposal.

David Nakamura and Debbi Wilgoren have this story in the WaPo about President Obama being overheard telling the President of Russia to wait for his second term for a deal on missiles. 

"On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space," Obama can be heard telling Medvedev, apparently referring to incoming Russian president -- and outgoing prime minister -- Vladi­mir Putin.

"Yeah, I understand," Medvedev replies, according to an account relayed by an ABC News producer, who said she viewed a recording of the discussion made by a Russian camera crew. "I understand your message about space. Space for you ..."

"This is my last election," Obama interjects. "After my election I have more flexibility."

In context, this appears to mean flexibility to make a deal much more favorable to the Russians than he can make now without endangering his reelection.

Makes you wonder what other changes are in store for a more "flexible" second term.  How about Supreme Court nominations?  Mr. Obama has taken some heat from lefties who think his two appointments so far are not radical enough.  Would he nominate someone who refuses to follow Gregg v. Georgia and votes to overturn every single capital sentence, as Brennan and Marshall did?  Or perhaps go farther and declare life-without-parole unconstitutional?

Let's hope we don't find out.

(Safety tip:  Firearms, microphones, and naked babies should be handled as if loaded at all times.)

Rachel Gordon and John Coté report in the SF Chron:

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee swore in an interim sheriff Wednesday afternoon after he suspended Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi from office and charged him with official misconduct.

View the charging documents (PDF)

*                              *                            *

Mirkarimi, 50, was sentenced Monday to three years probation for the false imprisonment of his wife, a misdemeanor charge to which he pleaded guilty last week in a plea bargain. He was accused of inflicting a bruise on his wife's arm when he grabbed her during a New Year's Eve argument in front of their 2-year-old son. At the time, Mirkarimi was a member of the Board of Supervisors.

Will federal courts in the years ahead move in the direction of giving more weight to rights of victims of crime and the law-abiding public, or will they care more about the criminals?  The primary determinant of that, of course, is the presidential election, but the Senate races matter, too.

Having a majority does not matter quite as much in the Senate as it does in the House, and since the Democrats established the precedent of routinely filibustering nominees it does not matter as much in judicial nominations as it did before.  It still matters a lot, though.

Getting Senators to vote no on an objectionable nominee takes less than getting them to filibuster.  With a Republican majority, we will get more judges through who care about law and order if a Republican is president, and we will block more who don't if a Democrat is president.

It also matters a great deal who chairs the Judiciary Committee.  Will it be Patrick Leahy or Chuck Grassley?  Huge difference.

Kimberly Strassel has this column in the WSJ on how Republican control of the Senate in the next Congress, once considered a strong bet, is endangered by efforts of the hard core to knock off Republican moderates in the primaries.  The "success" of such efforts in 2010 is why Harry Reid is still a senator and Joe Biden's seat remains in Democratic hands.

Todd Ruger reports at BLT, "After months of backlog and partisan recrimination, Senate leaders reached an agreement to move forward with judicial nominees this afternoon that assures 12 federal district court judge picks and two circuit court selections will get confirmation votes before the summer."  There are 17 nominees total.

"The two appellate judges in the deal are Stephanie Thacker in the 4th Circuit and Jacqueline Nguyen in the 9th Circuit."  "The circuit judicial nominees who did not make the deal include Andrew Hurwitz of the 9th Circuit; Paul Watford, also of the 9th Circuit; and Patty Shwartz of the 3rd Circuit."

California's Constitution provides, on the subject of felon voting, "The Legislature shall ... provide for the disqualification of electors while mentally incompetent or imprisoned or on parole for conviction of a felony."

Crystal clear, right?  Felons lose their right to vote when they are sentenced to imprisonment (but not probation), and they get it back when they have completed both the incarceration term and any subsequent parole period, right?

Well, never underestimate the ability of lawyers to tie the language in knots.  As a result of Gov. Jerry Brown's realignment program, lower level felons will do their time in county jail.  But obviously they are still "imprisoned ... for conviction of a felony," so that doesn't change the voting qualification.

Not according to the ACLU and the League of Women Voters.  They have sued the Secretary of State (a Democrat, for those who like to keep track of that) for opining that people in jail are "imprisoned."  Honestly, I'm not making this up.

CJLF's press release is here.

David Fahrenthold has this story in the WaPo on Mitt Romney as "severely conservative" governor of Massachusetts.  (That was an unfortunate choice of words that I suspect Romney regrets.)  Regarding Romney's attempt to reinstate the death penalty in Massachusetts, Fahrenthold says:

Romney worked especially hard on that last promise -- and, in the process, provided the case study of his measured, technocratic approach.

Romney didn't propose the most conservative kind of capital-punishment statute. Instead, he proposed a law so compromised that people wondered whether it would ever even be used.

Romney's bill would have allowed the death penalty only for a narrow range of especially horrific crimes. And it would have required a whole new standard of proof that went beyond the usual "beyond a reasonable doubt." Death sentences could be given only when there was "no doubt" at all.

I had a different take on it, which I told Fahrenthold on the phone.  Politics is the art of the possible.  Romney was fighting an uphill battle in a very liberal state, and he proposed the law he thought he had a shot of getting through.  Any death penalty law at all is very conservative in Massachusetts.  His proposal would not have been conservative in Texas, but that is like comparing jalapenos and cranberries.

My comment didn't make the cut.  Why is "left as an exercise for the reader," as my old physics textbooks said.