National: Magnate Steps Into 2012 Fray on Wild Pitch – Joe Ricketts Rejects Plan to Finance Anti-Obama Ads | NYTimes.com

Joe Ricketts, an up-by-the-bootstraps billionaire whose varied holdings include a name-brand brokerage firm in Omaha, a baseball team in Chicago, herds of bison in Wyoming and a start-up news Web site in New York, wanted to be a player in the 2012 election. On Thursday he was, though not in the way he had intended. Word that Mr. Ricketts had considered bankrolling a $10 million advertising campaign linking President Obama to the incendiary race-infused statements of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., brought waves of denunciation from Mitt Romney, the Obama campaign and much of the rest of the political world. Highlighting the perils of mixing partisan politics and corporate citizenship, the reverberations also swept through the Ricketts family’s business empire.

National: John Edwards trial: What will verdict mean for campaign finance? | CSMonitor.com

In the end, it seems, the John Edwards trial became only a circus sideshow in America’s convulsive efforts to define the limits of campaign finance. The defense rested abruptly Wednesday without Mr. Edwards taking the stand, marking the end of a courtroom drama that had plenty of drama but little of what the prosecution had promised, analysts and observers say. Before the trial began, prosecuting attorney Lanny Breuer said the federal government won’t “permit candidates for high office to abuse their special ability to access the coffers of their political supporters to circumvent our election laws.” … To some, the prosecution has overreached in an attempt to net a big fish. Yet the broader context of the trial has also played no small part in stripping it of deeper meaning for the political world. Indeed, given the US Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United ruling in 2010,  a candidate in a similar situation today would likely be able move such money to its target in an alternate, and legal, way.

Editorials: James O’Keefe’s voter fraud prank fail | Oliver Burkeman/guardian.co.uk

I suffer fairly severely from what psychologists call "empathic embarrassment": I find it agonising to the point of physical discomfort to watch other people making fools of themselves. Sacha Baron Cohen's Borat often had me writhing and cringing on behalf of his victims – even, troublingly, when his victims were spouting horrible bigotry. I'm really not proud of this. It's an annoying problem. And lately, it's been particularly disconcerting to find that the person prompting me to cover my face with my hands is the notorious "conservative provocateur" James O'Keefe III. O'Keefe, of course, is the rightwing prankster who helped bring down Acorn and was then convicted in connection with a sting at the offices of Louisana Senator Mary Landrieu. But with the significant exception of the ambush of Acorn, there's something epic – almost worthy of awed respect, if it didn't make me cringe so much – about how astonishingly inept he is at "punking" the liberals he despises.

Florida: State Steps Up Effort Against Illegal Voters | NYTimes.com

In an attempt to clear the voter rolls of noncitizens, a move that had set off criticism and a threatened lawsuit, Florida election officials decided on Thursday to use information from a federal database to check a list of 182,000 voters who they suspect are not citizens, officials said. Since last year, the Florida Division of Elections had sought access to the immigration database, which is maintained by the Department of Homeland Security, but the department said there were legal and technical difficulties in sharing the information. On Thursday, the elections division asked the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, which oversees driver’s licenses and originally compiled the list of 182,000 names, to use its access to the federal database to update its records and cross-check the names. … The state’s attempt to scrub registration rolls of illegal voters had come under fire because of the timing — less than seven months before a presidential election — and because the state itself could not guarantee the accuracy of its rolls.

Florida: Election chiefs skeptical of voter purge | Palm Beach Post

Florida's local election supervisors on Wednesday sounded skeptical, and even distrustful, of a push by the state to remove thousands of potential non-U.S. citizens from the voting rolls just months before the critical 2012 elections. The supervisors, meeting at their annual summer conference, peppered state election officials with questions about the list of more than 2,600 people who have been identified as being in Florida legally but ineligible to vote. That list was sent to supervisors recently, but state officials have also said there may be as many as 182,000 registered voters who may not be citizens. State election officials want the state's 67 county election offices to reach out to those on the list, determine their citizenship status and remove them from the rolls if they are not U.S. citizens. But election supervisors - including Democrats and Republicans - asked a range of questions about the level of proof that state election officials had regarding the citizenship status of voters which was culled by comparing voter registration lists to a state driver's license database. They said they wanted more information before they purge someone from the voting rolls.

Kansas: Kobach asks federal judges to redraw Kansas districts | KansasCity.com

Of the 50 states, Kansas now stands as the only one that has yet to draw new congressional boundaries. And it’s one of a handful of states that have yet to draw new state Senate and House districts, threatening to further delay candidate filing deadlines for the 2012 elections — and possibly even the Aug. 7 primary. Secretary of State Kris Kobach on Wednesday said lawmakers’ slow pace in redistricting is creating a “constitutional crisis,” and he asked a federal judge to intervene because lawmakers can’t get the job done. “I don’t want to go to court,” Kobach said at a news conference. “I don’t want to play any role in drawing these district lines. I am simply saying, ‘Please do your job. Take this out of my hands.’ ”

Mississippi: Voter ID bill signed, awaits feds’ scrutiny | Houston Chronicle

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant on Thursday signed a bill requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls, but it's unclear whether it will become law. Because of Mississippi's history of racial discrimination, the state is required to get federal approval for any change in election laws or procedures. The U.S. Justice Department in recent months has rejected voter ID laws from Texas and South Carolina. The state chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is asking the department to reject Mississippi's proposed law, saying it could disproportionately create hardships for poor, elderly or minority voters who might be less likely to have a photo ID.

Mississippi: Voter ID battle will be costly | SunHerald.com

Since when did Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann become the state’s chief legal officer? Last time I checked, Atty. Gen. Jim Hood was, under the 1890 state constitution, judicially established as the state’s chief legal officer. Totally ignoring that fact, the politically-ambitious Delbert is telling the media he’s the state’s champion to confront the monstrous U.S. Department of Justice and keep it from blocking the state from imposing a new law requiring Mississippians to show an approved ID in order to vote. “He (Hosemann) wants to be driving the train on the voter ID issue,” says NAACP attorney Carroll Rhodes, “while driving it off the tracks.” Rhodes on behalf of the NAACP will oppose whichever legal move the state makes to put its new voting limitation into effect.

South Carolina: No new candidates allowed; primary ballots set | TheState.com

The South Carolina Election Commission told the state Republican Party on Thursday that it effectively can't put a challenger to Gov. Nikki Haley's chief legislative opponent back on the June primary ballot. The commission said in an email Thursday the state GOP can't recertify state Senate candidate Katrina Shealy, two weeks after decertifying her and other contenders. It noted the state Supreme Court set a noon May 4 deadline for the GOP and Democratic parties to submit their lists of candidates who properly filed financial forms, and that ruling must be heeded. Shealy was among some 200 candidates for offices statewide decertified for not filing correctly. "To accept candidates after that would be in violation of that order," election commission spokesman Chris Whitmire told The Associated Press. "The June primary ballots are set. Ballots have been printed. Voting machines have been prepared, and voters are voting."

South Carolina: Senate approves bill to clear future election chaos | MidlandsConnect.com

The South Carolina Senate approved a bill Wednesday that could head off the election chaos that is currently swirling throughout South Carolina. Earlier this month, a state Supreme Court ruling resulted in almost 200 candidates being tossed off June's primary ballots after the court determined the political hopefuls did not properly file financial forms when filing to run for office. The Senate measure approved unanimously Wednesday would remove the Democratic and Republican parties from the filing process and synchronize the deadlines for incumbents and challengers to turn in financial paperwork. It does not apply retroactively, so it will not help candidates taken off ballots by the Supreme Court's ruling.

US Virgin Islands: Defendants call elections lawsuit frivolous | Virgin Islands Daily News

Defendants in the V.I. Superior Case filed on behalf of six of the seven members of the St. Croix Board of Elections say they are ready to defend themselves against charges of defamation of character and to deny they created a scandal. The members of the Board of Elections - Rupert Ross Jr., Lisa Harris Moorhead, Dodson James, Anita Davila, Carmen Golden and Raymond Williams - filed suit in V.I. Superior Court against members of the V.I. Action Group, fellow Board of Elections member Adelbert Bryan and others who the board members say are trying to ruin their reputations.

Editorials: Suppressing the student vote? New residency rules could affect Wisconsin’s recall election | The Daily Page

The voter ID law passed last spring by the Republican-controlled Wisconsin Legislature was widely criticized for requiring that voters show a driver's license or other form of photo identification at the polls. These provisions are now under two court injunctions by judges who found that the photo ID requirements likely discriminate against minorities, the poor and the elderly. Meanwhile, it is the bill's new residency requirements, largely lost in the controversy over photo ID, that are much more likely to keep students away from the polls in the upcoming June 5 recall elections for governor, lieutenant governor and four state Senate seats. Turnout among students, a voting bloc traditionally thought to favor Democrats, was already low in the May 8 recall primary. The new rules require that voters live at an address for 28 days before being eligible to vote. Dorm leases for 6,900 students at UW-Madison end May 20, and many of the other students living off campus will leave for the summer around the same time. Do the math and the dilemma is clear: There is no time to reestablish residency to vote June 5.

Lesotho: Keep calm and carry on voting – Lesotho’s elections look unusually competitive. That could spell trouble | The Economist

With barely a week to go before parliamentary elections in Lesotho on May 26th, there is no sign in the bustling capital of Maseru of the usual campaign paraphernalia: no posters, no cars emblazoned with party colours, no loudspeakers blaring political slogans, nothing to suggest that this mountain kingdom, surrounded by South Africa, was in the throes of its most hotly contested poll since independence from Britain nearly 50 years ago. This does not mean the Basotho, Lesotho’s 2m inhabitants, are unengaged. But the radio and party rallies are their preferred method of campaigning. Any of the country’s three main parties could win. The closeness of the race has people worried. Elections in Lesotho are generally deemed fair, but they have often been followed by violence. In 1998 Pakalitha Mosisili, leader of the newly elected Lesotho Congress for Democracy (LCD), had to ask the Southern African Development Community, a 15-member regional club which includes Lesotho, to send in troops to end months of rioting, looting, burning and killing. Many fear that could happen again.

Serbia: Heated debate ahead of Serbia’s elections | UPI.com

Serbia's two presidential candidates took part in a bitter televised debate just ahead of next week's second round of elections. Incumbent Boris Tadic, who resigned his presidential mandate last month and called for new elections, accused opponent Tomislav Nikolic, of the Serbian Progressive Party, of fabricating an election fraud scandal just after the first round of elections. "You made the electoral fraud up, and nothing you said is true," Tadic asserted during Wednesday's debate. "If it were true, you would have initiated court proceedings either here or you would address the court in Strasbourg, where you have been so many times."

The Voting News Daily: The Third Party Fantasy, Is Campaign Disclosure Heading Back to the Supreme Court?

Editorials: The Third Party Fantasy | NYTimes.com

“Third parties are like bees,” the intellectual historian Richard Hofstadter wrote in 1955. “Once they have stung, they die.” It’s an aphorism that aptly describes the anti-slavery and anti-immigrant parties of the mid-nineteenth century, the Populists and Progressives who ushered out the Gilded Age, as well as more recent third-party standard bearers, from George Wallace to Ross Perot. All of these movements and figures influenced American politics dramatically, before fading away and leaving the basic two-party duopoly intact. Of late, though, our potential third parties have been skipping the stinging part and going straight to the dying. This was true of Unity ’08, the much-ballyhooed attempt by former Democratic and Republican politicos to put up an independent alternative to Barack Obama and John McCain. Despite enjoying a wave of free publicity and boasting Sam Waterston of “Law & Order” as their spokesman, the Unityers never even came close to conjuring up a plausible candidate or platform, and their movement fizzled out amid attempts to entice an unwilling Michael Bloomberg into the lists. Read More

Editorials: Is Campaign Disclosure Heading Back to the Supreme Court? – Don’t expect to see Karl Rove’s Rolodex just yet | Rick Hasen/Slate Magazine

The news this week that a federal appeals court has refused to block a lower court ruling requiring the disclosure of more funders of campaign ads has campaign finance reformers tasting their first victory in a long time. “It’s the first major breakthrough in overcoming the massive amounts of secret contributions that are flowing into federal elections,” Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21 told the Los Angeles Times. But don’t expect to see Karl Rove’s Rolodex just yet. Crossroads GPS and other groups have found that raising money from donors who don’t want to be disclosed is good for business, and they’ve got a few ways to keep the unlimited money poured into campaigns secret yet. And before you get too excited it’s worth considering that the Supreme Court could well help them keep their secrets in 2012, even though the court has so far been a big supporter of disclosure laws.

Since 1974, federal campaign finance law has required the disclosure of campaign donors and spenders. Opponents of disclosure have long argued that at least some disclosure is unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech and association, because compelling someone to reveal the names of those funding political speech will chill vigorous participation in politics. As I’ve explained, the Supreme Court rejected that constitutional challenge in the 1976 campaign finance case, Buckley v. Valeo. Confronted in that instance with a law that required disclosure of even very small contributions, the court held that the disclosure laws were justified by three important government interests: First, disclosure laws can prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption. Second, disclosure laws provide valuable information to voters. (A busy public relies on disclosure information more than ever.) Third, disclosure laws help enforce other campaign finance laws, like the ban on foreign money in elections.

Editorials: The Third Party Fantasy | NYTimes.com

“Third parties are like bees,” the intellectual historian Richard Hofstadter wrote in 1955. “Once they have stung, they die.” It’s an aphorism that aptly describes the anti-slavery and anti-immigrant parties of the mid-nineteenth century, the Populists and Progressives who ushered out the Gilded Age, as well as more recent third-party standard bearers, from George Wallace to Ross Perot. All of these movements and figures influenced American politics dramatically, before fading away and leaving the basic two-party duopoly intact. Of late, though, our potential third parties have been skipping the stinging part and going straight to the dying. This was true of Unity ’08, the much-ballyhooed attempt by former Democratic and Republican politicos to put up an independent alternative to Barack Obama and John McCain. Despite enjoying a wave of free publicity and boasting Sam Waterston of “Law & Order” as their spokesman, the Unityers never even came close to conjuring up a plausible candidate or platform, and their movement fizzled out amid attempts to entice an unwilling Michael Bloomberg into the lists.

Editorials: Is Campaign Disclosure Heading Back to the Supreme Court? – Don’t expect to see Karl Rove’s Rolodex just yet | Rick Hasen/Slate Magazine

The news this week that a federal appeals court has refused to block a lower court ruling requiring the disclosure of more funders of campaign ads has campaign finance reformers tasting their first victory in a long time. “It's the first major breakthrough in overcoming the massive amounts of secret contributions that are flowing into federal elections," Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21 told the Los Angeles Times. But don’t expect to see Karl Rove’s Rolodex just yet. Crossroads GPS and other groups have found that raising money from donors who don’t want to be disclosed is good for business, and they’ve got a few ways to keep the unlimited money poured into campaigns secret yet. And before you get too excited it’s worth considering that the Supreme Court could well help them keep their secrets in 2012, even though the court has so far been a big supporter of disclosure laws.

Since 1974, federal campaign finance law has required the disclosure of campaign donors and spenders. Opponents of disclosure have long argued that at least some disclosure is unconstitutional under the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and association, because compelling someone to reveal the names of those funding political speech will chill vigorous participation in politics. As I’ve explained, the Supreme Court rejected that constitutional challenge in the 1976 campaign finance case, Buckley v. Valeo. Confronted in that instance with a law that required disclosure of even very small contributions, the court held that the disclosure laws were justified by three important government interests: First, disclosure laws can prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption. Second, disclosure laws provide valuable information to voters. (A busy public relies on disclosure information more than ever.) Third, disclosure laws help enforce other campaign finance laws, like the ban on foreign money in elections. But the court has repeatedly said that if someone could demonstrate a real threat of harassment, they could be exempt from the disclosure laws.

National: Court Supports Electioneering Ad Disclosures | Roll Call

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) has won another victory in his legal battle to force the Federal Election Commission to write stricter disclosure rules for certain types of political ads. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected a request by two conservative groups that it stay a March federal district court ruling that sided with Van Hollen. Van Hollen sued the FEC last year, arguing that its disclosure regulations for “electioneering communications” were too narrow and contrary to the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The appeals court ruling, which came late on Monday, raises the prospect that politically active trade associations and nonprofits will have to more fully report who funds the ads they run on the eve of an election.

National: Sen. McCain huddles with Democrats on campaign finance reform | TheHill.com

Sen. John McCain is talking with Democrats about a joint effort to require outside groups that have spent millions of dollars on this year’s elections to disclose their donors. McCain (R-Ariz.), once Congress’s leading champion of campaign finance reform, has kept a low profile on the issue in recent years.  He raised the ire of many Republicans a decade ago for pushing comprehensive reform, and many Republicans still held it against him during his 2008 presidential campaign.  Good-government advocates who worked with McCain in the 1990s and early 2000s had begun to think he’d given up on the issue. But McCain said Tuesday he could join Democrats once again to form a bipartisan coalition, even though it would annoy the Republican leadership. “I’ve been having discussions with Sen. [Sheldon] Whitehouse [D-R.I.] and a couple others on the issue,” McCain told The Hill.

Editorials: Americans Elect meets reality: third-party effort may be viable — just not now | Doyle McManus/latimes.com

What happens if you start a political party and nobody comes? Six months ago, a newfangled third party burst onto the scene, full of hope and promise. It was called Americans Elect, and it sought to give voters a choice many said they were looking for: "centrist" candidates who could break the partisan gridlock paralyzing Washington. In its founders' heads danced visions of middle-of-the-road candidates who could transform American politics: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Colin Powell, Michael Bloomberg, Jon Huntsman Jr. Wealthy donors invested millions in a fancy website for an Internet primary, signed up 420,000 would-be "delegates" and got on the ballot in 29 states. Newspaper columnists, including me, pondered what effect it might have on the election. Then the grand idea collided with reality.

Editorials: Voter ID Laws: Silencing the American People | John W. Whitehead/Huffington Post

"There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit the franchise that we see today. Why should we disenfranchise people forever once they've paid their price?" -- Bill Clinton

Despite the propaganda being advanced by the government, the purpose of voter ID laws is not to eliminate voter fraud and protect the integrity of elections. Rather, their aim is to silence and suppress as many American voters as possible and increase the already widening chasm between the electorate and our government representatives. In fact, voter ID laws are the icing on the cake when it comes to public officials shutting Americans out of the decision-making process, silencing dissent, and making sure that those in power stay in power and have the last word on government policy. In other words, voter ID laws are the final step in securing the American corporate oligarchy, the unchallenged rule by the privileged and few.

Arizona: New state law could alter future election dates in city, county | Mohave Daily News

A bill signed by the Arizona governor that would consolidate elections could impact city and county elections in Mohave County. Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law House bill HB-2826 that would consolidate elections effective in 2014. The goal of the bill was to increase voter turnout and to reduce the cost of an election. Bullhead City will hold elections for four council members with the primary in March 2013 and the runoff election in May 2013. The new council members will serve 31⁄2-year terms with the next primary and general elections for those seats to be held in August and November 2016. After the 2013 election, Bullhead City as well as Kingman and Lake Havasu City will hold elections in the fall along with state and national elections, Bullhead City Clerk Sue Stein said.

California: FEC says Feinstein can’t go back to donors after embezzlement | San Jose Mercury News

The Federal Election Commission ruled Tuesday that U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, whose campaign lost millions to embezzlement by treasurer Kinde Durkee, can try to go back and collect new contributions from donors whose checks were never cashed. But the FEC ruled that Feinstein, D-Calif., can't take new contributions from donors whose money Durkee pocketed. Overall, Feinstein campaign consultant Bill Carrick said Wednesday, that leaves the senator with almost no recourse. First California Bank hasn't released records from the Durkee-managed accounts, he said, so the campaign has no "capacity to figure out right now what money was deposited and what money wasn't deposited." Congresswoman Linda Sanchez, D-Lakewood; Loretta Sanchez, D-Anaheim, and Susan Davis, D-San Diego -- also Durkee clients -- are in the same boat, Carrick said.

Colorado: Groups urge veto of limits on voted-ballot inspections | The Denver Post

A growing coalition is asking Gov. John Hickenlooper to veto a bill that creates rules for public inspection of voted ballots, saying it is "an unprecedented step" to block the public's right to ensure fair elections that was "ramrodded" through the legislature in its final days. Among those who have contacted Hickenlooper or plan to do so are members of the Colorado Lawyers Committee Election Task Force, the chairman of the Ute Mountain Ute tribe, Colorado Common Cause, Colorado Ethics Watch and two election-integrity groups. "The reality of this legislation is that at the most critical time, when the public has an interest in clerks' management of elections, it creates an unprecedented exemption from (the Colorado Open Records Act)," said John Zakhem, a prominent elections attorney.

Florida: Republican-backed voting laws blamed for drop in new voter registrations | ABC

81,000 fewer new voters. That's what one researcher says is the difference from four years ago, before new, restrictive voter registration laws went into effect in Florida.   It's just what opponents of the laws feared would happen. When Governor Rick Scott signed the law that requires volunteers registering voters in Florida to register with the state last year, the reaction was swift and angry. It was called voter suppression and "Jim Crowesque." Even the non-partisan League of Women Voters refused to go by the new rules that gave them only 48 hours to submit registration forms to the state. "The law is vague and cumbersome and it would put our volunteers at personal risk of fines, so we decided instead to challenge it in court," said Mickey Castor of the League of Women Voters.

Florida: Timing of scrubbing noncitizens from voters rolls worry election supervisors | Tampa Bay Times

In February, county election supervisors got some news from the state motor vehicle agency: A database audit in April 2011 had identified more than 20,000 potential non-U.S. citizens on voter rolls. But the Florida Department of State, which knew of the audit, didn't begin forwarding a portion of those names to county election supervisors until recently — just six months from the presidential election in November. That yearlong delay has frustrated many election supervisors, who worry database scrubbing could be tainted by accusations of politics this close to an election. Hispanic, Democratic and independent-minded voters are the most likely to be targeted in the review, an analysis by the Miami Herald found.

Michigan: The Best Courts Money Can Buy – Supreme Court Elections: Expensive and Partisan | NYTimes.com

Republicans often rail against “unelected judges” who issue decisions they don’t like. That sneering phrase, often used in complement with “judicial activism,” is meant to conjure the image of elitist liberals eager to meddle with legislation. The putdown also implies that judges lack legitimacy if they ascend to the bench without voter input. By that logic, judicial elections are preferable to merit selection—which is exactly backwards. Elections are the worst way to select judges. The process leaves judges beholden to party bosses, wealthy donors, and the whims of the very, very few people who actually bother to vote. Consider the state of Supreme Court elections in Michigan. On Monday, Justice Marilyn Kelly of the Michigan Supreme Court and Judge James L. Ryan of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit wrote in an article for the Detroit Free Press that “since the turn of the century, Michigan has gained a reputation for Supreme Court election campaigns that are among the most expensive, least transparent and most partisan in the country. Our campaign ads have been among the most offensive.”

New York: Hamburg Voting Machine Malfunction Problem Solved | wgrz.com

Voters in Hamburg Central School will soon know their school budget vote results now that the problem with a malfunctioning ballot machine has been solved. Erie County Board of Elections Michael Agostino told 2 On Your Side a malfunctioning USB stick drive could not read the final results Tuesday night. The machine was sealed and taken away. Agostino said voting officials took all the paper ballots inserted into the machine Wednesday morning, and re-inserted them into a different machine and used a new stick drive to tally up the results. He went on to say sometimes technology will work well one minute and fail the next.

Ohio: Governor signs law to repeal voting law changes | CNBC

Ohio's Republican Governor John Kasich signed a bill on Tuesday reversing a contentious voting law that Democrats have called a blatant attempt at voter repression, in a move aimed at pre-empting a threatened repeal referendum. The bill rolled back a law passed last year barring counties from mailing unsolicited absentee ballots to voters and removing a requirement that poll workers assist voters they knew were voting in the wrong location. But the measure stopped short of reversing a related measure that eliminated in-person voting on the three days immediately preceding an election, as Democrats want.

Ohio: Kasich’s signing of election law ‘repeal’ doesn’t end debate | Cincinnati.com

Ohio’s march toward what’s expected to be a nationally watched 2012 election took an apparently unprecedented step Tuesday, one that could put election officials into court before a ballot is cast. The potential scenario emerged Tuesday when Gov. John Kasich signed a law that repeals a controversial election bill passed in 2011 by the GOP-dominated General Assembly. The 2011 bill, which created voting restrictions that Democrats and some good-government groups decried, was to go before voters in November. The gambit, apparently the first time that Ohio legislators have ever effectively killed a referendum destined for voters, sets up a possible lawsuit over a question that could impact this fall’s election: May state legislators repeal a bill that has not yet taken effect and that is up for referendum? Democrats argue the answer is no.