Nearly eight years ago, the country had an election meltdown, ending with misguided Supreme Court intervention in a presidential election. There's been some progress in fixing the "system", but Election Day still is a time for election officials to pray that there won't be a close election exposing the fatal flaws in their state's system.

One reason we still cannot trust our voting system is the resistance to change by many state and local officials. For instance, their opposition recently helped derail an effort in Congress to fix the voting machine problem. There are heroes, of course, among them these Profiles in Courage (see 2008 awards). But, as the NY Times pointed out today, but not enough of them. The Times editorial notes some federal reform leglislation that is languishing in Congress:

Read more...

I lost my respect and reverence for the Supreme Court long ago so I was among the large group of unsurprised yesterday when the court upheld a law erected as a barrier to voting - Indiana's strict voter photo ID law.  Not only have the justices left only the thinnest thread of hope for future challenges but, more importantly, they have encouraged those who seek to build more barriers to the polling place.  My state, Virginia, has an ID requirement.  I'm sure it won't be too long before it's amended to require a photo.  Poll tax, anyone?

While there's been a lot of legal analysis whizzing across my screen - "facial challenge" (is that acne?) -- I liked this quote:

Several years ago, at a Senate hearing, I heard Robert Squier, a pioneer of big-time, big money campaign consulting, trying to explaining why candidates at times take contributions from questionable sources. He said that when you're at a point in a campaign when you're desperate for cash, that's when problems start.

I was reminded of Squier's remarks reading the NY Times story about Hillary Clinton's campaign cash troubles (I'm not picking on Clinton - this happens in a lot of campaigns at all levels). The story says "the campaign is actively hunting for new wellsprings of cash" and facing a "daily challenge ... to scrounge up new names of people to ask for money." Clinton, according to the piece, is has been "exhorting fund-raisers to `think outside the box.'"

One place they're looking may be outside the "box" of campaign finance laws - 527's and other groups that spend money purportedly independent of the campaign. One fundraiser said, somewhat defensively and not too convincingly, "These are very smart people who are being very thoughtful about it." The word "thoughtful" conjures up notions of being careful to do the right thing (as opposed to pushing the legal envelope). I doubt it.

As I noted last week, there's a link between the District of Columbia and the Maryland congressional district being vacated early, and in an unseemly manner, by Rep. Al Wynn. They share not only a boundary and some Beltway exits, but soon MD4 may be without representation in Congress - just like DC. Here's the WaPo editorial today:
A clear majority in the Senate support the bill. We only need three Senators to overcome a filibuster: A couple of Dems, Baucus (MT) and Byrd (WV) and one Repub, maybe Hagel (NE) or Smith (OR). Live in those states? Give them a call.

Today, the WaPo highlights the continuing embarassment to our democracy - or, at least, one of those embarassments: no agency to enforce campaign finance laws.

Of course, the hangup is still the highly controversial FEC nominee Hans von Spakovsky.  We've asked the presidential candidates and the Senate leaders to end the deadlock over the FEC nominees.  No movement.  No enforcement of campaign finance laws in a year with record-busting amounts of money being raised.

US Rep. Al Wynn, defeated in a primary, announced this week that he is quitting his seat in June, six months before his term ends. He's taking a job as a partner in a Washington lobby firm. This comes as no surprise. I'll let the WaPo comments stand by themselves:But there's something else in the Post editorial that's worth noting:I agree that's an injustice. And, how about this injustice: DC residents have had no vote (and only recently a voice) for more than 200 years. Maryland can fix the 6-month injustice easily. The US Senate can undo the injustice to DC's residents - three more Senators can vote to end the filibuster blocking a bill giving DC a vote in the US House of Representatives.

The House took a leap into new reform territory for them when it voted to setup an ethics oversight office, ending years of failure at policing itself.

While it may seem obvious that Members of Congress have had problems passing judgement on their colleagues, that's not what some Members were saying during debate on the ethics bill last night. (all quotes from WaPo article linked above) Here's veteran Rep Neil Abercrombie (D-HI):

And across the Capitol lawn, the Senate felt compelled to respond quickly and negatively to the House taking this great step forward for reform:

Steny Hoyer - also a veteran member - had it right:

Here's a brief excerpt from a CQ article on the current effort to establish an ethics commission for the House:

I don't expect Members of Congress to be historians, but can't they recall what happened when they snubbed reform just a few years ago?  Let's recap:

• In 1994, the Democrats lost a 40-year hold on the US House.  A significant factor was a series of scandals, some small, some big, many a product of the odd mix of arrogance and moribund-ness that comes from being in power too long.  The scandals kept coming: Speaker Wright, House post office, House bank, Rostenkowsi...and the Dems, along with the new President Clinton, dropped the ball on an opportunity to pass public financing of congressional campaigns.
• In 2006, the Republicans, taking only 12 years to become too-arrogant, lost the House.  This time, scandal was key to their loss - Abramoff, Delay, Foley, Cunningham became synonymous with Congressional scandal.  The Republicans, too, resisted reforms.

Now, most Republicans and a number of Democrats are resisting ethics oversight.  The ethics commission is the right thing to do - and it's in their own interest.

When will they ever learn?