Is this an electioneering communication? Is it express advocacy? Does it have a disclaimer? Does it need a disclaimer?

Early votes in Texas exceed state’s total votes in 2016

roughest draft of letter to delaware elections commissioner. Office of the State Election Commissioner State Election Commissioner: Anthony J. Albence 905 S. Governors Ave Ste 170 Dover DE 19904 (302) 739-4277 coe_vote@delaware.gov cc: Department of Elections · New Castle County Office County Director: Tracey N. Dixon Carvel State Office Building 820 North French St Suite 400 Wilmington DE 19801 PO BOX 7079 Wilmington DE 19803-0079 votencc@delaware.gov Dear Sirs: I learned recently that in 2012 or 2013 the elections commission adopted a policy of censoring political signs and flyers, by compelling inclusion of a disclaimer, and perhaps also a pointer to the election commission's website for committee reports. I expect to be writing shortly with a formal request for an advisory opinion. This letter has a more limited scope. I am writing first to ask whether there has been any advisory opinion from the election commissioner on this topic of disclaimer requirements for campaign literature. I did not see one when look at the commissioner's web site, but I may have overlooked something, so I am asking. Second, has there been any delaware attorney general opinion discussing the 2012 changes to the disclaimer statute? Previously, the Delaware Attorney General had ruled that the disclaimer statute was unconstitutional and unenforcable in light of McIntyre v Ohio Election Commission, which held that disclaimer statutes are as unconstitutional in elections as they are generally. The amended statute has a new number, but the proscribed conduct is the same as in the older version. The Supreme Court held, and the attorney general agreed, that under the First Amendment states may not compel political speech, and may not require disclaimer on political signs and pamplets. This is in line with the Delaware Supreme Court's construction of the Delaware constitution as protecting anonymus speech, Opinion of the Justices 1972. So when I brought suit, Anonymous v Delaware (2000), seeking a declaratory judgment that the statute was unconstitutional and void, the court held that there was no case or controversy, because all parties were in agreement that the policy was void and unenforcable. So it was a shock to me to learn in 2020 that you have been doing so since about 2013, and without notice to me. My third question is whether the commission has engaged in any formal or informal enforcement of its new policy, such as fines or compliance orders. A fourth question is whether your policy applies to the internet, in light of cases such as Reno v ACLU. I realize you are at a busy time of the year, but I would appreciate a prompt response. My general take is that your behavior, as evidenced by policy statements on the web page, is unlawful, illegal, unethical, tortious, and constitutes malfeasance in office. But it may be that there is some official opinion wich might provide some basis for qualified immunity, so I thought it would be a good idea to ask about that before proceeding further. Sincerely, Robbin Stewart. gtbear at gmail.com. 302.[redacted] 28 Marsh Woods Lane Wilmington 19810. notes to first draft: link to website. does it apply to internet? del const: or who, being an officer of election or registration officer, shall knowingly and wilfully violate said person's official duty; or who shall by force, threat, menace or intimidation, prevent or hinder, or attempt to prevent or hinder, any person qualified for registration from being registered or any person qualified to vote from voting according to said person's choice at any such general, special or municipal election, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five thousand dollars, or shall be imprisoned for a term not less than one month nor more than three years, or shall suffer both fine and imprisonment within said limits, at the discretion of the court; and shall further for a term of ten years next following said person's sentence, be incapable of voting at any such general, special, municipal or primary election or convention or meeting; § 3. Free and equal elections. Section 3. All elections shall be free and equal. § 5. Freedom of press and speech; evidence in libel prosecutions; jury questions. Section 5. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man. The press shall be free to every citizen who undertakes to examine the official conduct of persons acting in a public capacity; and any citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. In prosecutions for publications, investigating the proceedings of officers, or where the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and in all indictments for libels the jury may determine the facts and the law, as in other cases. sec 16 yet the citizens have a right in an orderly manner to meet together, and to apply to persons intrusted with the powers of government, for redress of grievances or other proper purposes, by petition, remonstrance or address.

FAQ: Do I have to put the words “Paid for by…” on our campaign signs? § 8021. Identification of purchaser - All campaign advertisements having a fair market value of $500 or more, except printed items with a surface of less than 9 square inches, shall include prominently the statement: "Paid for by [name of political committee or other person paying for such advertisement.]." For purposes of this section, "campaign advertisements" shall include any communication by a candidate committee or political party that would otherwise qualify as an independent expenditure or an electioneering communication but for the fact it was made by a candidate committee or political party. (also refer to CF Regulations 7.1-7.7.3 for additional requirements)

billing note 6:30-7:30 oct 31. 1 hr.

nov 1 4 am. rough draft of second letter. Dear sirs, This is my request for an advisory opinion as to what the election commission's position is with regard to disclaimers on poitical literature. An undisclosed client of mine was planning to spend over $500 on signs and literature in new castle county this election season, generally of the format "vote for smith", but was deterred by the threat of enforcement on your website of disclaimer requirements. He/She/They are not willing to include any compelled speech on the signs. In light of the threat, they cancelled plans for the signs until we get this worked out. They plan to be active in the next election cycle. Some of the background to this request is that in 1960 the Supreme Court found disclaimer rules unconstitutional in Talley v California. In 1972 the Delaware Supreme Court, in Opinion of the Justices, ruled that anonymous speech is protected by the Delaware constitution. I am having difficulty finding this opinion, but I have read it before and know it exists. In 1995 in McIntyre v Ohio Elections Commission, the U S supreme court clarified that there is no elections exception to the rule in Talley that the constitution protects anonymous speech. Subsequent to McIntyre decision, the Delaware Attorney general issued an opinion that Delaware's disclaimer statute was unconstitutional, void, and would not be enforced. In 1997 a federal court ruled that my sign which read "Robbin Stewart for Township Board - Vote Tuesday" had been illegally confiscated,and that Indiana's statute was unconstitutional per Mcintyre. In 2000 I was plaintiff's counsel in Anonymous v Delaware, which chalenged the disclaimer rule. In that case, the court ruled that since both sides agreed the rule was unconstitutional under McIntyre, there was no live case or controversy,and dismissed the case. The anonymous plaintiff in that case was Vermont resident Scott Huminski. Huminsky at the time was involved in a dispute regarding his signs at a Burlington Courthouse, and was concerned about retaliation, so proceeded anonymously in the Delaware case. Represented by Robert Corn-Revere, he was later awarded $900,000 in the Vermont case. He is not a party to the current dispute. In or around 2012, minor non-material amendments were made to the void unconstitutional statute, and enforcement began. I was given no notice or opportunity to comment, and did not learn of this until during this past month. In recent years the Supreme Court has made several rulings about poitical signs. In Town of Vincent v Gilbert, the court reiterated that the standard of review is strict scrutiny, resolving some confusion resulting from Citizens United v FEC. In Becerra v NIFLA, the court found a different kind of disclaimer statute unconstitutional because of the well established principle that the government may not compel speech. Barnette, Wooley v Maynard, Riley v Federation of the Blind, AID v. Open Society, Tornillo v Miami Herald, Buckley v ACLF, Watchtower v. Stratton. In light of these controlling cases covering both the state and federal constitutions, and given that you have sworn an oath to uphold the constitutions, I am seeking an advisory opinion as to the enforcability of the statute regulations and rules concerning disclaimers by your office. One of the factors in the dismissal of the case in 2000 was that we had not obtained an advisory opinion from the Election Commissioner before filing the suit. So this time I am doing so. Sincerely, Robbin Stewart.

https://floridianpress.com/2020/10/anti-trump-dark-money-mailer-hits-republican-mailboxes/

clearly unconstitutional. talley v california, becerra v nifla, tornillo v miami herald. but see fec v public citizen, an 11th circuit case. and WORLEY v. BUSTILLO. Also Doug Guetzloe was jailed in a florida disclaimer case a while back. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1257784.html is part of the record of that case. more background: https://respublicamyblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/the-smell-in-the-room-controversy-over-floridas-new-ballot-qualified-tea-party/

here is a disclaimer story that is more complicated. can a candidate use a photo of himself in a military uniform without a disclaimer? i don't know the constitutionality of such a rule.

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/collins-senate-air-force-georgia/2020/10/30/id/994564/

i am still having trouble with the new blogger interface, can't get the right font size, etc. i came home tonight and there were some political fliers in the mail. based on their disclaimers, i looked up delaware's disclaimer rules. Saturday, October 24, 2020 delaware: Do I have to put the words “Paid for by…” on our campaign signs? § 8021. Identification of purchaser - All campaign advertisements having a fair market value of $500 or more, except printed items with a surface of less than 9 square inches, shall include prominently the statement: "Paid for by [name of political committee or other person paying for such advertisement.]." For purposes of this section, "campaign advertisements" shall include any communication by a candidate committee or political party that would otherwise qualify as an independent expenditure or an electioneering communication but for the fact it was made by a candidate committee or political party. (also refer to CF Regulations 7.1-7.7.3 for additional requirements) in 2000, in anonymous v delaware, the court ruled that this was so obviously unconstitutional that there was no live dispute. (a) All campaign advertisements having a fair market value of $500 or more, except printed items with a surface of less than 9 square inches, shall include prominently the statement:  “Paid for by [name of political committee or other person paying for such advertisement.].”  For purposes of this section, “campaign advertisements” shall include any communication by a candidate committee or political party that would otherwise qualify as an independent expenditure or an electioneering communication but for the fact it was made by a candidate committee or political party. (b) All third-party advertisements having a fair market value of $500 or more, except printed items with a surface of less than 9 square inches, shall include prominently the statement:  “Paid for by [name of political committee or other person paying for such third-party advertisement.  Learn more about [name of person] at [Commissioner of Elections' web address].” (c) The Commissioner may adopt regulations regarding the size, placement and duration of the foregoing statements as the same shall apply to specific forms of campaign advertisements.  In connection therewith, the Commissioner may modify or amend the foregoing statements to conform to the requirements of a particular medium (i.e., television, radio, print, Internet), and may by regulation create exemptions from the requirements hereunder where compliance is not reasonably practicable due to the small size or short duration of such advertisements.  In all events, however, campaign advertisements having the same medium and duration (for example, 15-second radio advertisements or Internet advertisements having less than 200 characters) shall be subject to the same requirements. « Prev New regulation enacted 2013, with no notice to me. This means war, said the bunny. notes: unco: § 8020 Authorized campaign expenditures. 7.5 Statement specifications, television communications. In addition to the general requirements of Section 7.2 hereunder, all statements required pursuant to 15 Del.C. §8021 that appear in any television communication must also comply with the following specifications: 7.5.1 The statement shall be both written and spoken either at the beginning or at the end of the communication, except that if the statement is written for at least five seconds of a broadcast of thirty seconds or less or ten seconds of a sixty second broadcast, a spoken disclosure statement is not required. 7.5.2 The written disclosure statement shall appear with a reasonable degree of color contrast between the background and text of the statement, must be of sufficient size to be readily legible to an average viewer and shall air for at least four (4) seconds. 7.6 Statement specifications, radio communications. In addition to the general requirements of Section 7.2 hereunder, all statements required pursuant to 15 Del.C. §8021 that appear in any radio communication must also comply with the following specifications: 7.6.1 The statement shall be spoken in a clearly audible and intelligible manner at the beginning or end of the communication. 7.6.2 The statement shall have a duration of at least three (3) seconds. 7.7 Statement specifications, telephone communications. In addition to the general requirements of Section 7.2 hereunder, all statements required pursuant to 15 Del.C. §8021 that appear in any telephone communication must also comply with the following specifications: 7.7.1 The statement shall be spoken in a clearly audible and intelligible manner at the beginning or end of the communication. 7.7.3 The statement shall have a duration of at least three (3) seconds. = 11.0 Advisory opinions Any person may apply to the Commissioner for a ruling that applies 15 Del.C. Ch. 80 to a particular set of facts specified by the person. Such requests must be in writing and signed by the requestor. The Commissioner will issue such ruling in writing with copies available to the public, except that the identity of that person that requested the ruling will not be disclosed without the person's consent. Copies of such rulings will be distributed in accordance with 15 Del.C. §8041.

to do: find out if there have been any advisory opinions by either department of elections or attorney general. 6:30-7 pm saturday october 24th.

https://casetext.com/case/anonymous-v-state

https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-willie-wilson-senate-ad-complaint-20201016-lt72fdnwove7lltvl3gu7pzmfm-story.html

blogger seems to have changed its formatting methods, which may take me a while to sort out.

Willie Wilson’s third-party campaign challenging U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin acknowledged Friday two ads it aired lacked a federally required candidate disclaimer, which had led the head of a major Illinois Democratic organization to file a federal complaint. Scott Winslow, a spokesman for Wilson’s campaign said the required statements had been taped, but were “inadvertently dropped” from the ad during production. “Those two were corrected by the production company (Thursday) and resubmitted to advertising stations,” he said. At issue is a requirement in federal election law known as the “Stand By Your Ad” disclaimer. Familiar to anyone who watches television during a busy campaign season, it’s the requirement that features a candidate stating their name and that they “approve this message.” info@drwilliewilsonfoundation.org info@fec.gov i need to add the text of my letter to the reporter. robbin stewart Mon, Oct 19, 3:33 PM (10 hours ago) to rpearson, me https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-willie-wilson-senate-ad-complaint-20201016-lt72fdnwove7lltvl3gu7pzmfm-story.html Hi Mr Pearson, I want to bring to your attention a 1960 civil rights case, Talley v California, which held that disclaimer rules like "stand by your ad" are unconstitutional. During the jim crow era, disclaimer rules were used to silence or harass blacks and women who dared to speak out about politics. But the supreme court has repeatedly ruled that ads like these are core polticial speech and fully protected under the first amendment. Although the case you write about is federal, I'll also mention that the Illinois constitution also protects this kind of speech. People v White. I have litigated this issue in Indiana and at the 7th circuit in Stewart v Taylor (s d ind 1997) and Majors v Abell (7th cir 2004). The Janus case last year is a recent example of the court holding the government may not compel speech. Some of the democrats on the FEC are refusing to follow the supreme court's rulings in this line of cases, notably Ellen Weintraub, but the Republicans on the FEC understand the principles involved so this complaint will go nowhere. Back in my day it was usually the Democrats who fought illegal censorship; odd how that has changed. I hope you will continue to cover this issue, adding this new information. Happy to discuss. 302 529 1529 or gtbear@gmail. As far as I know, the tribune reports the news, and is not just a house organ for te democratic party like some newspapers of note. My next step will be to look into who Zahorik is. She should know better. Thanks for your time, Sincerely Robbin Stewart. robbin stewart 2:01 AM (9 minutes ago) to info hello. i am writing to request a copy of the complaint by k zahorik against willie wilson in the illinois senate race. i also want to intervene in this matter. i am unsure of the process for doing so. thanks, robbin stewart,

# posted by gt @ 2:36 PM

 https://floridianpress.com/2020/10/election-complaint-filed-against-daniella-levine-cava/

The issue is that she self-identifies as a Democrat in a nonpartisan race. I doubt such a statute would be constitutional, although both the 11th circuit and the Florida Supreme Court are unreliable on such issues.

 https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200930006024/en/Prop.-21-Backers-File-Lawsuit-Over-Money-Laundering-by-Opponents-of-Rent-Control-Measure

California lawsuit seeks to unconstitutionally compel speech.

http://business.itbusinessnet.com/2020/10/prop-21-backers-file-lawsuit-over-money-laundering-by-opponents-of-rent-control-measure/

same info.

 letter somewhat as sent:

roughest draft of an open letter to the office of the secretary of state of minnesota:

I am writing with regard to press reports that a political candidate Richard Glasgow, a mayor of Lakeland, was fined $250 for signs promoting his candidacy. 

I cannot allow this. His signs are protected speech under the First Amendment, the Minnesota Constitution, and Minnesota statutes. These sign censorship statutes are a legacy of the Jim Crow era, designed to suppress the speech of Negroes and women.

See Talley v California (1960) and Estate of McIntyre v Ohio Elections Comission (1995), holding that such disclaimer statutes are unconstitutional.

In Stewart v Taylor (S D Ind. 1997) I was able to get Indiana's sign censorship statute declared unconstitutional by pointing to the McIntyre decision. I got $7,000 from the settlement of that case, and have made it a point to monitor similar occurrences of misconduct by public officials.

The signs are protected speech under Minnesota chapter  554, which provides for court costs, legal fees, ordinary and punitive damages. 

Although they are not my signs, I have standing and a live controversy to challenge this unlawful enforcement action because it chills my speech. I have a web site where I endorse the candidate with no disclaimer, and intend to continue to engage in such speech. https://ballots.blogspot.com/2020/09/this-blog-endorses-mayor-richard.html.

https://ballots.blogspot.com/2020/09/it-was-illegal-for-lakeland-mayor.html

In addition to being unlawful and tortious, it is unethical for any attorney to participate in this deprivation of civil rights, and might result in a disciplinary complaint if this letter is willfully disregarded. 

I need you to cease and desist from any further attempt to enforce the void unconstitutional sign censorship rules. I need to you to revise your web page to remove any threat of enforcement of this illegal policy, and to let me know when you have done so. I need you to return the $250 fine if it has been collected, even if the candidate didn't mind paying it. Also if there have been any other fines assessed under the policy, return those. Talley and Mcintyre are quite clear about what the law is and what your profssional obligations are, but if there is any question, feel free to obtain a formal opinion from the Minnesota Attorney General. 

Sincerely, Robbin Stewart. gtbear@gmail.com http://ballots.blogspot.com.

This blog endorses Mayor Richard Glasgow of Lakeland MN for re-election. Vote for Glasgow.

http://www.stripcreator.com/comics/arbitrary/614418

 https://www.twincities.com/2020/09/24/lakeland-mayor-fined-250-over-missing-disclaimer-on-campaign-material/

it was illegal for Lakeland Mayor Richard Glasgow to disseminate campaign materials that lacked a disclaimer.

That was the decision released Thursday by three state administrative law judges on a complaint made in August against Glasgow, who is seeking re-election on Nov. 3. The panel imposed a $250 civil penalty.

The panel found that Glasgow violated a portion of the Fair Campaign Practices Act when he failed to include a disclaimer on campaign materials such as signs posted in yards and on a website called “LakelandtheTruth.us.” Under state law, campaign materials are required to have a form of disclaimer such as: “Prepared and paid for by the ……. committee, ……. (address) for….”

Glasgow’s failure to include a disclaimer on his campaign material was “negligent,” the panel concluded. “Respondent is a veteran candidate and should be familiar with the laws governing campaign practice.”

Glasgow, who was first elected mayor in 2016, is running for a third term as mayor. He was a Lakeland City Council member for 10 years prior to becoming mayor and also served on the city’s planning commission. (story continues at link)

Of course, these signs were protected speech under the US and Minnesota constitutions,

and the attempted fine was a violation of the candidate's civil rights.

The complaint was filed Aug. 14 by Lakeland resident Mary Miller, a member of Concerned Citizens of Lakeland. Because the complaint was filed within 90 days before the general election, it included a request for an expedited probable-cause hearing.

So Miller conspired to violate his rights. Concerned Citizens may or may not have been implicated as well.

Oh but the plot thickens.

A few weeks after Miller filed her complaint, Glasgow filed his own complaint to the state Office of Administrative Hearings charging his opponent — Council Member Joe Paiement — with failing to put required information on his campaign signs. Glasgow’s complaint against Paiement was originally dismissed because Glasgow did not appear at the hearing; Glasgow said Thursday he did not receive notice of the hearing until the day after the hearing when he received it in the mail. A probable cause hearing on the matter was held Thursday, he said.

https://www.twincities.com/2020/08/20/lakeland-mayor-faces-campaign-complaint-hearing-to-be-held-friday/  bshaw@pioneerpress.com

By MARY DIVINE | mdivine@pioneerpress.com 

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/211B.04 is the unconstitutional and void statue in question.

secretary of state's threat of enforcement https://www.sos.state.mn.us/election-administration-campaigns/campaigning/disclaimer-requirement/

Gossman, MaryBeth (651) 361-7837 marybeth.gossman@state.mn.us Staff Attorney Supervisor < person who might be in charge or know who is.

https://mn.gov/oah/about-us/judge-profiles/staff-attorneys/

Sec. 3. Liberty of the press.

The liberty of the press shall forever remain inviolate, and all persons may freely speak, write and publish their sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right.

 https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/516732-new-ad-disclaimers-silence-activists

 https://www.the-sun.com/news/1463548/transsexual-satanist-anarchist-wins-nomination-new-hampshire-sheriff/

https://www.registerguard.com/story/news/2020/09/03/longtime-oregon-supreme-court-justice-hans-linde-dies-age-96/5685350002/

hans linde dead at 96. oregon supreme court justice (judge?), along with william brennan, was a major figure in the state constitutional law movement.

“Former Oregon Supreme Court Justice Hans A. Linde dies at 96”: Lizzy Acker of The Oregonian has this report. And Adam Liptak of The New York Times reports that  “Hans A. Linde, Iconoclastic Legal Scholar, Dies at 96; As a justice on the Oregon Supreme Court, he was a proponent of the new judicial federalism of the 1970s, which grounded civil rights protections in state constitutions.”

https://i.redd.it/upzkxs7kskh51.jpg

https://imgur.com/gallery/QOOfk6U 1964 literacy test

https://eagleeyecitizen.org/content/pay-your-poll-tax

https://eagleeyecitizen.org/content/attention-men-and-women

https://eagleeyecitizen.org/content/pay-your-poll-tax-today

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/poverty-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/25/2020/06/05-Richardson_Final_Proof.pdf

https://texasscorecard.com/federal/trump-appointee-highlights-unfairness-of-speech-regulations-in-first-act-on-fec/

Recently elected as chairman of the Federal Election Commission, Trey Trainor led the commission in dismissing an unfair complaint.

Submitted Claim ID:	GGL2093181
Confirmation Code:	00055754
You will need the above Submitted Claim ID and Confirmation Code if you would like to edit your Claim at a later time, so please print this page for your records.
CLAIM INFORMATION
First Name	robbin
Last Name	stewart
Street Address	box 29164
City	indianapolis
State	IN
Zip Code	46229
Primary Email Address to use for communications	gtbear@gmail.com
Google+ Email Address	gtbear@gmail.com
Payment Method	Paypal
PayPal Email Address	gtbear@gmail.com

Signature	/s/robbin stewart
Date	2020-08-04 23:52:56

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/04/899128589/conservative-kris-kobach-projected-to-lose-kansas-gop-senate-primary

Maine: Secretary of State Matt Dunlap may have disqualified legitimate signatures on a petition to get ranked choice voting on the ballot. "Through a meticulous investigation by our team and volunteers, we have found and verified that thousands of registered Maine voters’ signatures were improperly deemed invalid." The Fulcrum

Strange bedfellows department: It's not often I find myself agreeing with J. Christian Adams, but this is worth looking into, as well as his digging into dead people on the voting rolls in chicago. 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/19/american-action-network-asks-justice-department-to/

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-07-27/wealthy-donors-pour-millions-into-fight-over-mail-in-voting

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/22/voter-identification-laws-cost-taxpayers-36m

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/mississippi-drop-jim-crow-era-statewide-voting-process-71607643

https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/FrankOWI-decision.pdf

after 3 years of waiting, a decision int he wisconsin voter id case. i dont have time to read it right now.
i have to leave right now to drive to work at amazon, bagging groceries all night, a covid inspired rare working for wages gig for which i have already given notice; i expect to spent next month in phoenix cathing up on blogging with a grant from celerion.
but the news isn't good; this won't be any help in my ongoing struggle against indiana's unconstitutional voter ID.

Rich Hasen writes suggesting a constitutional amendment for equality in voting rights.
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=112649 
Bring on the 28th amendment.

What might such an amendment look like? How about "Section 1. All elections shall be free and equal."

My point is we already have this. The reason no one (Josh Douglas excepted) notices is that it is hidden in the state constitutions, instead of the federal one.

it's now sunday night. the kentucky election was tuesday. we still dont know who the democratic nominee for senate against mcconnell will be (or is.) this is ...ok, but unusual.
wikipedia shows,onpartial results, booker with a 2% lead over mcgrath.
booker is a state senator, a black male. mcgrath is nominee-apparent, endorsed by party leaders and with about a million in the bank.

https://arizonaslaw.blogspot.com/2020/06/breaking-democratic-suit-challenging.html

I have a sincere belief that the judge was wrong on dismissing this case on standing grounds.

Political association rights are adequately implicated. Vote dilution is among the harms challenged.

I have not studied the merits in depth, but it looks like a valid claim there as well. state law favors the party in power in ballot order placement. strict scrutiny should apply to that kind of meddling in election fairness. this time it's democrats but get hurt, but as electionlawyers we shouldn't be too concerned about whose ox is getting gored;it's about having a fair process under the law.

as usual richard winger is the fact expect on ballot order and election trvia generally.

https://www.wellandgood.com/good-advice/voter-id-laws-discriminatory/

Update, 10:45 a.m., June 18: At its first meeting in 10 months, the FEC unanimously confirmed Trainor as commission chairman

list of things the author claims you need photo id for
https://www.bbntimes.com/society/usa-id-is-needed-in-all-of-society
    Purchasing alcohol 
Purchasing cigarettes
Opening a checking or savings account
Applying for food stamps
Applying for welfare

Applying for Medicaid
Applying for Social Security
Applying for a job
Applying for and receiving unemployment compensation
Renting a home or apartment

Buying a house
Applying for a mortgage
Driving a car
Renting a car
Buying a car 

Driving a taxi cab
Driving to Canada
Driving to Mexico
Renting a hotel room
Renting a motorbike

Renting jet skis, boats, canoes, and snow mobiles
Skydiving
Bunge-jumping
Boarding an airplane
Enlisting in the armed services

Applying for a hunting license
Applying for a fishing license
Obtaining a marriage license
Purchasing a gun
Adopting a pet from the ASPCA 

Buying a cell phone
Visiting a casino
Entering a bar
Picking up a prescription
Purchasing certain cold medicines 

Donating blood
Booking a cruise
Boarding a cruise ship
Holding a rally
Buying an "M" rated video game

Nominating someone to run for public office
Running for public office
Shipping a package at UPS retail locations
Shipping a package at U.S. Postal Service locations
Picking up a package at U.S. Postal Service locations

Buying a lottery ticket
Collecting lottery winnings
Buying an Amtrak or Greyhound Bus ticket
Sending an Amtrak express shipments
Storing baggage at Amtrak stations

Receiving veterans benefits
Taking a college placement test
Being admitted to a College Level Examination Program test center
Being admitted to Graduate Record Exam test center
Being admitted to an Law School Admission Council test center

Posting on Instagram
Being pulled over by a State trooper
Applying for a U.S. passport
Entering a U.S. Court of Appeals
Reinstating a disabled Facebook of LinkedIn account

Attending various U.S. military or space symposiums
Being accepted to a medical marijuana program
Taking a Federal Aviation Administration test
Taking an Automotive Service Excellence test
Entering the Pentagon

Visiting the U.S. Naval Academy, West Point, Quantico, etc        
Enrolling in home swapping vacation arrangements
Returning an item at Walmarts or Target Stores
Receiving senior discount bus and movies fares
Receiving free immunizations for eligible children

Making a pawn shop purchase 
Doing business with a local, state, or federal court
Appearing before court appointed handlers when on parole or probation
Purchasing fireworks
Visiting someone in prison

Attending an NC-17-adult movie
Receiving your own medical records
Receiving unclaimed property
Participating in most public road races
Claiming a prize from radio station sponsored contest

===
Purchasing alcohol  -no, i just send my butler.

Opening a checking or savings account -  i opened on online last week with no id.

Applying for a job  - yes

Renting a home or apartment - no. landlords take cash.

Buying a house - yes, if i want title insurance.

Driving a car - yes

Buying a car - no. owners take cash.

Driving to Canada - requires passport, authorized by treaty. i no longer go.
Driving to Mexico - the only time i've been to mexico i walked in.
Renting a hotel room - varies by hotel. most do, some don't, up to them.

Obtaining a marriage license - constitutionally questionable.
Purchasing a gun - owners take cash. 
Adopting a pet from the ASPCA. ok so i won't adopt a pet, happy now? 

Buying a cell phone - false.
Visiting a casino - true.
Entering a bar - depends on the bar. my long grey beard shows i am of age.
Picking up a prescription - i just send my butler.
Donating blood - ok so i don't donate blood. happy now?
Holding a rally - false.
Nominating someone to run for public office - false
Running for public office - last time i ran was 2010 so i could be misremembering, but i dont think so.
Shipping a package at U.S. Postal Service locations - false.
Buying a lottery ticket - i dount it, but i could just send my butler. never bought one.

Buying an Amtrak or Greyhound Bus ticket - false - i get my ticket online.

Posting on Instagram. dunno. not reddit, facebook, 4chan etc.
Being pulled over by a State trooper. false. 
Applying for a U.S. passport  - not my first one, when i was 12. 
Entering a U.S. Court of Appeals. true, and problematic, but i've gotten around it.
Entering the Pentagon - not last time i was there, but it's been awhile.
Doing business with a local, state, or federal court - false. did not need ID for my amicus brief. 
Visiting someone in prison - false, i use my nonphoto bar card.

Attending an NC-17-adult movie - false.
Receiving your own medical records. false. written request is enough.
- robbin stewart gtbear at gmail.