Support NeoGAF

[Wilsongt]

The 4 least trusted news sources:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/guess-the-4-news-sources-distrusted-by-all-generations/

Try to contain your shock.

Ivy lives for Buzzfeed, though.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Ivy lives for Buzzfeed, though.

Chris Geidner's coverage of legal news is usually among the best available.

 

[thepotatoman]

Buzzfeed is underrated. They have a lot of legit journalists on staff who have experience doing good work with other trusted news sources.

They just don't exactly take celebrity and lifestyle light news super seriously but that type of stuff doesn't really need to be taken seriously. I think a lot of people just assume their lifestyle articles represent the type of seriousness they give their news articles.

 

[Oblivion]

It's true. While Buzzfeed is mostly known for their wretched list based click bait, their political reporting is actually pretty decent. And they tend to get some really good scoops before everyone else. I believe they're the ones that broke the story that Rand Paul was plagiarizing from Wikipedia.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Doesn't the general grounds on which the 2016 election will be fought on - specifically reviving the middle class, income inequality, giving people relief - prove Obama's presidency has largely been a failure? He ran on a platform of hope and change, enacted a variety of liberal policies meant to help the middle class...and while he definitely prevented the economy from imploding, overall things aren't better than they were during most of Bush's presidency for the middle class. In many ways things are worse.

If only there was some explanation why Obama didn't get much done as far as passing bills after his first two years...hmm. (And no, we know the only two things the GOP wanted to negotiate with Obama about over the past six years - his resignation or his total surrender.)

But, we get it. You need proof Obama has been a failure, when in reality, he's been the most effective liberal President since LBJ. He hasn't passed a lot of laws, but his judicial appointments and decisions by various executive agencies will piss off Republican's for a generation.

 

[Ecotic]

Doesn't the general grounds on which the 2016 election will be fought on - specifically reviving the middle class, income inequality, giving people relief - prove Obama's presidency has largely been a failure? He ran on a platform of hope and change, enacted a variety of liberal policies meant to help the middle class...and while he definitely prevented the economy from imploding, overall things aren't better than they were during most of Bush's presidency for the middle class. In many ways things are worse.

Seeing it in terms of Presidential failure or success is too simplistic for me. Ultimately globalization has been good for the U.S. on aggregate, but distributionally disastrous for the masses. The most abundant factor of production gains from economic liberalization, be it capital, land, or labor, and for the U.S. that's capital. That force is principally why economic inequality is skyrocketing. China and the developing country's masses are doing great by globalization because it's labor that's abundant there. There's some good ideas to make the U.S. middle class more competitive, but the owners of capital in the U.S. are doing great so they've effectively ground Congress to a halt in order to continue the status quo. The U.S. just needs to admit to itself that it's not some outsized personality in the White House that can save us this time like in the past.

 

[thepotatoman]

If only there was some explanation why Obama didn't get much done as far as passing bills after his first two years...hmm. (And no, we know the only two things the GOP wanted to negotiate with Obama about over the past six years - his resignation or his total surrender.)

But, we get it. You need proof Obama has been a failure, when in reality, he's been the most effective liberal President since LBJ. He hasn't passed a lot of laws, but his judicial appointments and decisions by various executive agencies will piss off Republican's for a generation.

Obama's done a lot of good in a lot of areas, but wealth inequality is one of the things he has failed royally at, and is currently working to make it even worse with the TPP.

He's clearly a true believer in neoliberal supply side economics. He's a little more of a nightwatchman than a republican would be regarding things like the environment, health care, minimum wage, and marginal taxes on the highest earners, but no where close to what we need to undo the damage 45 years of Reaganomics have done to this country.

The champion of income inequality will be the one that champions demand side economics as the primary economic philosophy, and Obama and Hillary both aren't that.

 

[Jooney]

Red = Officially announced
Perry = Tomorrow
The rest = Likely running (most all but announced)

Worst character select screen ever.

 

[Black Republican]

Worst character select screen ever.

Wonder if Yoshimitsu is in this one

 

[Aaron Strife]

Doesn't the general grounds on which the 2016 election will be fought on - specifically reviving the middle class, income inequality, giving people relief - prove Obama's presidency has largely been a failure? He ran on a platform of hope and change, enacted a variety of liberal policies meant to help the middle class...and while he definitely prevented the economy from imploding, overall things aren't better than they were during most of Bush's presidency for the middle class. In many ways things are worse.

I dunno PD what do you think

 

[HylianTom]

Obama's done a lot of good in a lot of areas, but wealth inequality is one of the things he has failed royally at, and is currently working to make it even worse with the TPP.

He's clearly a true believer in neoliberal supply side economics. He's a little more of a nightwatchman than a republican would be regarding things like the environment, health care, minimum wage, and marginal taxes on the highest earners, but no where close to what we need to undo the damage 45 years of Reaganomics have done to this country.

The champion of income inequality will be the one that champions demand side economics as the primary economic philosophy, and Obama and Hillary both aren't that.

This is where my inner doomer comes out. We're going to keep on this middling hold-it-together-with-duct-tape-and-spit path until we see a particularly nasty fall. I'm putting that lightly. That's the only time we truly do anything big these days - on an emergent basis. Energy, environment, finance.. even with Bernie somehow winning with a Democratic Congress, my expectations would be severely tempered.

My hopes for effective federal government to solve The Big Existential Problems are pretty damn slim, which might be a large part of why I'm stuck in this mode of "hmm.. we might as well get a civil rights/liberties-friendly court out of this."

Stack this sentiment with absolutely zero faith in my state's government (Martians could nuke Louisiana's capitol and I'd likely react like the grandma from Mars Attacks), and I find myself placing focusing more and more on my city's government, mainly in the context of this question: "how resilient will we be going into this future?"

 

[Diablos]

Bad news for Hillary?

A growing number of people say she is not honest and trustworthy (57%, up from 49% in March), less than half feel she cares about people like them (47%, down from 53% last July) and more now feel she does not inspire confidence (50%, up from 42% last March).

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/02/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-poll-gop-field-close/index.html

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Bad news for Hillary?


http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/02/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-poll-gop-field-close/index.html

Eh, it was inevitable once she announced she was running that she'd lose some Republican and moderate support she had during her State Dept. tenure. She's also been the only Democratic candidate that anyone has been attacking. She'll even back out closer to the primaries IMO but she'll never get back to her 2008 numbers before the general, or maybe not at all since she'll be officially a partisan politician and not a more neutral position like cabinet secretary.

 

[BertramCooper]

Do you think we'll ever see a legitimate movement in Congress to get rid of the Department of Homeland Security? Is there anything that stupid agency has ever done right?

Republicans are so eager to dismantle executive departments and agencies. How about we get rid of this one?

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Do you think we'll ever see a legitimate movement in Congress to get rid of the Department of Homeland Security? Is there anything that stupid agency has ever done right?

Republicans are so eager to dismantle executive departments and agencies. How about we get rid of this one?

Didn't they stop the shampoo/toothpaste/whatever plot?

That's.... all I can think of.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Do you think we'll ever see a legitimate movement in Congress to get rid of the Department of Homeland Security? Is there anything that stupid agency has ever done right?

Republicans are so eager to dismantle executive departments and agencies. How about we get rid of this one?

Eh. Really, just forcing the existing alphabet agencies to play nice has a lot of benefits. The sheer inefficiency and dick-waving that used to go on... I read this great book about J. Edgar Hoover, and apparently one time he actively sabotaged the CIA's efforts to get someone to defect because... god, I don't even remember, I think it's just because he didn't like the guy's name. Inter-agency cooperation is very much a good thing.

Besides. I suspect there's some confirmation bias on display. When they're doing their job right, you don't hear about it.

 

[FyreWulff]

Do you think we'll ever see a legitimate movement in Congress to get rid of the Department of Homeland Security? Is there anything that stupid agency has ever done right?

Republicans are so eager to dismantle executive departments and agencies. How about we get rid of this one?

Republicans are against government agencies unless it's military related, then they're all "GIVE IT ALL THE MONEY". Then the Dems being center right, they'll be all "WE GOTS TO LOOK TOUGH, GIVE IT ALL THE MONEY"

Personally, I also find "Homeland" anything creepy as fuck, but unfortunately we'll probably just have to wait for the sands of time and distance from 9/11 before we can successfully dismantle it.

 

[BertramCooper]

Eh. Really, just forcing the existing alphabet agencies to play nice has a lot of benefits. The sheer inefficiency and dick-waving that used to go on... I read this great book about J. Edgar Hoover, and apparently one time he actively sabotaged the CIA's efforts to get someone to defect because... god, I don't even remember, I think it's just because he didn't like the guy's name. Inter-agency cooperation is very much a good thing.

Besides. I suspect there's some confirmation bias on display. When they're doing their job right, you don't hear about it.

Does the public have any tangible proof that DHS is actually succeeding at any of this?

I mean, as an ordinary U.S. citizen who has been granted no security clearance, I don't expect to have full and immediate access to sensitive DHS information. But as a relatively new and very expensive department, I think they need to prove that they deserve to exist.

Personally I just haven't heard or read much of anything that suggests that DHS has achieved much at all. But I'm more than fine with being proven wrong.

 

[Mike M]

Does the public have any tangible proof that DHS is actually succeeding at any of this?

I mean, as an ordinary U.S. citizen who has been granted no security clearance, I don't expect to have full and immediate access to sensitive DHS information. But as a relatively new and very expensive department, I think they need to prove that they deserve to exist.

Personally I just haven't heard or read much of anything that suggests that DHS has achieved much at all. But I'm more than fine with being proven wrong.

We've got plenty of hearsay and conjecture, those are kinds of evidence...

Seriously though, has any federal agency ceased to exist entirely outside of things like renaming the Department of War the Department of Defense?

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

We've got plenty of hearsay and conjecture, those are kinds of evidence...

Seriously though, has any federal agency ceased to exist entirely outside of things like renaming the Department of War the Department of Defense?

Well the Dept. of the Navy, more disappeared than just a name change, but it was technically absorbed.

I'm going through some old documents for work (like from the 40's-50's) and they mention some crazy department that handled pesticide registration and testing before the EPA existed. Might have just been a subset of USDA though.

There was also the Department of Federal Security, which handled soc. security, food & drug policy, and federal education funds. Eisenhower scrubbed it with the Reorganization Act.

 

[FyreWulff]

We've got plenty of hearsay and conjecture, those are kinds of evidence...

Seriously though, has any federal agency ceased to exist entirely outside of things like renaming the Department of War the Department of Defense?

Technically the INS no longer exists, but I think that was more just shuffling who owns what than an actual shutdown.

The other ones that I can find via Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government#Former_agencies

So yeah, they generally tend to stick around.

 

[Lucky Forward]

Jeb Bush, Taking His Time, Tests the Legal Definition of Candidate

Jeb Bush is under growing pressure to acknowledge what to some voters and a number of campaign finance lawyers seems obvious: He is running for president.

The lawyers say Mr. Bush, a former Florida governor, is stretching the limits of election law by crisscrossing the country, hiring a political team and raising tens of millions of dollars at fund-raisers, all without declaring — except once, by mistake — that he is a candidate.

Some election experts say Mr. Bush passed the legal threshold to be considered a candidate months ago, even if he has not formally acknowledged it. Federal law makes anyone who raises or spends $5,000 in an effort to become president a candidate and thus subject to the spending and disclosure restrictions. Some limited activities are allowed for candidates who are merely “testing the waters” for a run.

“When you look at the totality of the activities, could a reasonable person conclude anything other than that he is seeking the presidency?” asked Karl J. Sandstrom, a campaign finance lawyer who served on the Federal Election Commission.

The issue is not one of mere semantics. If Mr. Bush did declare that he is running, it would bring a raft of election restrictions, including a limit of $2,700 on contributions, and a ban on “coordinating” with a “super PAC” he has used to raise money.

But much of campaign finance law is a subject of dispute, and defining who is a candidate is no exception.

In an appearance Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” the host, Bob Schieffer, asked Mr. Bush bluntly whether he was violating the law by not declaring himself a candidate for the White House.

“No, of course not,” Mr. Bush responded, appearing jarred by the question. “I would never do that.”

Mr. Bush said he was “nearing the end of this journey of traveling and listening to people, garnering, trying to get a sense of whether my candidacy would be viable or not.”

He added, “We’re going to completely adhere to the law, for sure.”

Mr. Schieffer sounded incredulous. “Now you’re not telling me there’s a possibility you may not run?” he asked.

Mr. Bush did not waver. “Look, I hope I — I hope I run, to be honest with you,” he said. “I would like to run. But I haven’t made the decision.”

Last month, he slipped up for a moment, telling reporters in Nevada, “I am running for president in 2016.” He quickly corrected himself, adding “if I run.”

So can Jeb continue this indefinitely? At what point will he be compelled to officially declare?

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Jeb Bush, Taking His Time, Tests the Legal Definition of Candidate





So can Jeb continue this indefinitely? At what point will he be compelled to officially declare?

I'd guess until whenever the New Hampshire Republican Party has its due date for primary participation.

 

[FyreWulff]

I'm going to laugh if Jeb is just using this to soak up a bunch of free money and jet

 

[NeoXChaos]

Al Cardenas, a longtime Bush friend who attended the summit, said that polls are tightening because media attention is too focused on Bush’s family history and not on his record as Florida governor. “It’s about Bush, not Jeb,” he said.

But once people learn more about his time as governor, Cardenas said, “then it will become more about Jeb, not Bush.”

People repeat this all the time. We will see in a few months.

 

[ivysaur12]

Chris Geidner's coverage of legal news is usually among the best available.

Exactly. He's thorough and doesn't skip nuance.

 

[thefro]

In Indiana RFRA fallout news... IRS has approved the tax-exempt status for the "First Church of Cannabis"

Levin, the self-appointed "minister of love," formed the church this year partly as a means to test the state's new Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which offers protections against the government infringing on religious practices.

Levin plans his first official church service July 1 — the day RFRA becomes law — where his members will follow blessings by smoking marijuana in what he describes as a religious practice. But some legal experts doubt such an illegal act would be exempted from prosecution by the religious protections offered by RFRA.

Levin provided the Star with a copy of his non-profit notification from the IRS.

"You are qualified to receive tax deductible bequests, devises, transfers or gifts," the letter, stamped May 21, 2015, reads. "We determined that you are a public charity."

This will be fun to watch to see if they arrest him or not.

 

[Macho Madness]

Pence also sent out perhaps the most disingenuous to the letter to the Indy Pride Festival:

Compare it to former Gov. Daniels' letter:

Glenda Ritz sent out her own letter, which reveals a little something we didn't know before.

 

[BertramCooper]

Pence also sent out perhaps the most disingenuous to the letter to the Indy Pride Festival:

Don't understand what's wrong with it.

Nothing is more welcoming than the results of a USA Today Readers' Choice digital poll.

 

[ivysaur12]

I hadn't realized Ritz didn't officially announce yet.

 

[Dan]

In Indiana RFRA fallout news... IRS has approved the tax-exempt status for the "First Church of Cannabis"

[/img]http://i.imgur.com/cn2z8bw.jpg[/img]



This will be fun to watch to see if they arrest him or not.

We've entered a fascinating alternate timeline where this is what Doc Brown is doing.

 

[KingK]

Ritz is a good choice. Teachers seem to really love her, and she won in a landslide in a year when republicans swept everything else in the state. I saw more people post about her than the governor's race that year. Plus even a lot of republicans i know on Facebook like her and were pissed when Pence neutered her office's power despite the clear mandate she had received. With Pence weak with all of these self inflicted wounds and a lot of republican voters in the state already having voted for Ritz for a statewide office last election, i think she stands a decent chance.

 

[Metaphoreus]

In Indiana RFRA fallout news... IRS has approved the tax-exempt status for the "First Church of Cannabis"

http://i.imgur.com/cn2z8bw.jpg

This will be fun to watch to see if they arrest him or not.

They will, and his defense will fail. It's been tried before in other RFRA(ish) states:

I hope they didn't have to spend any money to set that up, because it's not going to work out for them. See this Arizona case or this Washington case for how courts have dealt with arguments like that in the past.

 

[Plinko]

Ritz is a good choice. Teachers seem to really love her, and she won in a landslide in a year when republicans swept everything else in the state. I saw more people post about her than the governor's race that year. Plus even a lot of republicans i know on Facebook like her and were pissed when Pence neutered her office's power despite the clear mandate she had received. With Pence weak with all of these self inflicted wounds and a lot of republican voters in the state already having voted for Ritz for a statewide office last election, i think she stands a decent chance.

She actually garnered more votes than Pence did in their respective races, I believe.

 

[ivysaur12]

She actually garnered more votes than Pence did in their respective races, I believe.

She did, though it's not a 1-1 comparison. Still, Glenda is one of two statewide-elected Democrats in Indiana, so I get why she'd jump in. She probably has the best chance of winning.

 

[BertramCooper]

Ugh.

I'm taking my annual bus-full o'teens to D.C. in a couple of weeks and we now have to meet this douche.

UGH.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Americans like George W. Bush better than President Obama: poll
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/americans-george-w-bush-better-obama-poll-article-1.2245357

 

[Black Mamba]

Americans like George W. Bush better than President Obama: poll
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/americans-george-w-bush-better-obama-poll-article-1.2245357

Positive view of Bush does not mean positive view of the Bush presidency.

I think most people think Bush is a swell dude. I think a lot of people irrationally hate Obama.

 

[ivysaur12]

Americans like George W. Bush better than President Obama: poll
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/americans-george-w-bush-better-obama-poll-article-1.2245357

This is pretty typical of most presidents post-presidency.

 

[BertramCooper]

Americans like George W. Bush better than President Obama: poll
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/americans-george-w-bush-better-obama-poll-article-1.2245357

Everyone misses that good ol' fashioned W-style fiscal conservatism.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

HRC's going to propose a minimum of at least 20 days of early voting nationwide. Such a good policy and something that all Dems should get behind:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-at-least-20-days-of-early-voting-nationwide/

 

[ivysaur12]

POLLS

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/06/cooper-takes-small-lead-over-mccrory.html

PPP's newest North Carolina poll finds Roy Cooper leading Pat McCrory in the race for Governor, 44/41. Those numbers are flipped from a month ago when McCrory led by the same spread, and they end a long string of polls in which McCrory held the lead.

What's changed since early April is Republican leaning voters souring on McCrory a little bit. In early April he had a 69 point advantage over Cooper among voters who cast their ballots for Mitt Romney in 2012, 80/11. This month his lead within that group is down to 58 points at 73/15. That difference accounts for pretty much the entire difference between McCrory's three point lead on the previous poll and his three point deficit on this one. It seems quite probable that McCrory's high profile vetoes of two conservative pieces of legislation the Republicans in the legislature passed this week could be leading to at least some temporary weakness with GOP leaning voters- time will tell if that proves to be lasting or just a temporary blip.

McCrory's approval ratings continue to be under water, as they have been for the last two years. 38% of voters approve of him to 44% who disapprove. A plurality of North Carolinians- 44%- have no opinion about Cooper either way but among those who do have one 32% see him favorably to 24% with a negative opinion.

There's been little change in the state of the North Carolina Senate race over the last month. Voters remain closely divided on Richard Burr- 35% approve of the job he's doing to 36% who disapprove- little different from his 36/37 spread a month ago. Despite his tepid approval numbers though Burr still starts out with pretty healthy leads for reelection. He's up by anywhere from 9 to 18 points against the 5 Democrats we tested against him.

Coming closest to Burr are Kay Hagan (49/40) and Mike McIntyre (43/34), each of whom trail by 9 points. Dan Blue has a 14 point deficit at 48/34, Grier Martin trails by 15 at 46/31, and Jeff Jackson is down by 18 at 48/30. When it comes to how voters feel about the potential Democratic candidates we continue to find the same thing- most of them are not well known. Blue has 34% name recognition, McIntyre's is 33%, and Martin and Jackson's each comes in at 21%. Hagan is pretty universally well known but continues to have upside down favorability numbers after being subjected to endless negative ads during her reelection contest last year- 39% see her favorably to 51% with an unfavorable opinion.

 

[Wilsongt]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/scott-walker-pregnancy-from-rape-only-an-issue-in-initial-months/

“I mean, I think for most people who are concerned about that, it’s in the initial months where they’re most concerned about it,” Walker told reporters. “In this case, again, it’s an unborn life, it’s an unborn child and that’s why we feel strongly about it.” He said he is prepared to sign the legislation “either way” state lawmakers send it to him.

You only feel strongly about it until it's born, and if it belongs to a poor black family, you're all "Not my problem."

Oh.

Just about everyone in the media has been reporting on the bill’s lack of exceptions for abortions in cases involving rape or incest, but as the Huffington Post points out, the bill contains a rather intriguing provision regarding the legal rights of fathers.

Specifically, fathers of unborn children who undergo abortion procedures — successful and otherwise — can sue the offending doctors for “damages for personal injury and emotional and psychological distress” in cases that occur after the first 20 weeks.

The bill does say that women can sue as well, which is understandable considering they too would be undergoing the procedure. As for the details of the father’s legal standing in such situations, he “does not need to be married to the woman or even in a relationship with her to sue her doctor, as long as the pregnancy is not a result of sexual assault or incest.”

A few things to take away from these provisions:

Both potential parents can sue the doctor(s) performing the abortion, but the father’s inclusion is interesting given that he doesn’t undergo any physical procedure whatsoever.
Although the abortion ban doesn’t make exceptions for pregnancies due to rape or incest, it does enforce these strictures on any father who wants to pursue a lawsuit against the doctor.

In other words, the bill doesn’t allow pregnant women past the first 20 weeks to get an abortion in cases of rape and incest. However, it does at least legally penalize the father in such cases by preventing him from suing the doctor.

Oh.

 

[Third Strike]

POLLS

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/06/cooper-takes-small-lead-over-mccrory.html

Nancy McFarlane, current mayor of Raleigh, should consider running against Burr. She's had a pretty good tenure so far, and she is pretty well known in the Triangle.

 

[NeoXChaos]

HRC's going to propose a minimum of at least 20 days of early voting nationwide. Such a good policy and something that all Dems should get behind:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-at-least-20-days-of-early-voting-nationwide/

not gonna happen with the way things are now. How would that even work exactly? would she get Congress to pass a law forcing the states to adopt a nationwide early voting system? Not too many Republican Secretary of States would be happy with that.

 

[DarthWoo]

In just another case of GOP candidate says something stupid:

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum rebuked Pope Francis this week, saying the pope should “leave science to the scientists” with regard to the pontiff’s remarks on climate change.

Yeah, like those ~97% of scientists who would agree that climate change is occurring and is caused by humans?

 

[Poodlestrike]

In just another case of GOP candidate says something stupid:



Yeah, like those ~97% of scientists who would agree that climate change is occurring and is caused by humans?

No, no, I agree with him. We should leave science to the scientists. I am 100% behind Santorum on this one, and believe that he should be reminded of it at every opportunity.

 

[B-Dubs]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/scott-walker-pregnancy-from-rape-only-an-issue-in-initial-months/



You only feel strongly about it until it's born, and if it belongs to a poor black family, you're all "Not my problem."

Oh.



Oh.

That is some dumb fucking shit. Goddamn, why won't they learn?

 

[Black Mamba]

In just another case of GOP candidate says something stupid:



Yeah, like those ~97% of scientists who would agree that climate change is occurring and is caused by humans?

The Pope has a masters in Chemistry

 

[Jooney]

Democrats Challenge Voter Restrictions in Battleground States

Democrats allied with Hillary Rodham Clinton are mounting a nationwide legal battle 17 months before the 2016 presidential election, seeking to roll back Republican-enacted restrictions on voter access that Democrats say could, if unchallenged, prove decisive in a close campaign.

The court fights began last month with lawsuits filed in Ohio and Wisconsin, presidential battleground states whose governors are likely to run for the Republican nomination themselves. Now, Democrats are attacking a host of measures, including voter identification requirements that they consider onerous, time restrictions imposed on early voting that they say could make it difficult to cast ballots the weekend before Election Day, and rules that could nullify ballots cast in the wrong precinct.


The effort, which is being spearheaded by a lawyer whose clients include Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, reflects an urgent practical need, Democrats say: to get litigation underway early enough so that federal judges can be persuaded to intervene in states where Republicans control legislatures and governor’s offices. But Republicans dismiss it as little more than a publicity gambit to rile up minority voters in support of Democratic candidates.

Just a timely reminder that equal representation isn't the only pressing issue when it comes to voting.