Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
March 3, 2018

Maryland Senate moves on bill to require release of tax returns by presidential candidates

These ballot access laws will be fun to watch. California passed one but it was vetoed by Gov. Brown. After Brown is out, California may try again. New Jersey also passed one of these laws but it was vetoed by Christie https://www.fredericknewspost.com/news/politics_and_government/maryland-senate-moves-on-bill-to-require-release-of-tax/article_44d26757-22c5-55d8-a828-c3bffe81bdbb.html

ANNAPOLIS — Want to run for president of the United States in Maryland? These lawmakers would like to see your income tax return first.

A Democratic majority in the Maryland Senate moved forward a bill on Thursday that would require presidential candidates to release their federal income tax returns to the Maryland State Board of Elections before a general election. The elections board would, in turn, make the returns publicly available online.

Supporters say that the bill, which would apply to all presidential candidates beginning in 2020, was not intended to target President Donald Trump, but his decision during the 2016 campaign to flout the decades-long practice of voluntary disclosure brought the issue to the fore.

In a Quinnipiac University Poll released last week, 67 percent of Americans said they think Trump should publicly release his tax returns

Trump will challenge these laws and I hope that all good democrats will support these laws. I would hate to see anyone running in a Democratic primary fight one of these laws.
February 28, 2018

GOTV-I voted today

My vote will be in tomorrow's numbers


February 22, 2018

Texas: In lawsuit, activists say Texas winner-take-all approach to the Electoral College is discrim

Texas: In lawsuit, activists say Texas’ winner-take-all approach to the Electoral College is discriminatory https://thevotingnews.com/winner-take-all-electoral-practice-faces-voter-rights-challenge-bloomberg/

Saying Texas’ current practice is discriminatory, a group of Hispanic activists and lawyers has sued the state in hopes of blocking it from awarding all of its Electoral College votes to one candidate during presidential elections. The lawsuit filed in federal court Wednesday calls on Texas to treat voters “in an equal manner” by abolishing that “winner-take-all” approach, which all but two states use. The suit, filed by the League of United Latin American Citizens and a coalition of Texas lawyers, says that approach violates the U.S. Constitution and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It’s just one of many pending voting rights lawsuits arguing that Texas, which regularly votes Republican, has illegally discriminated against voters of color.

Similar Electoral College lawsuits were also filed Wednesday in Republican-dominated South Carolina and Democratic-leaning Massachusetts and California. The South Carolina suit also alleges a Voting Rights Act violation.

At the suit’s core is the doctrine of “one person, one vote,” rooted in the 14th Amendment. The plaintiffs argue that the winner-take-all system is unconstitutional because Texans who favor losing candidates “effectively had their votes cancelled,” while voters who favor winning candidates see their influence “unconstitutionally [magnified].” The suit also alleges that winner-take-all violates the First Amendment.
February 22, 2018

Misinterpreting a judges order, right-wing media have convinced themselves that Michael Flynn is ab

Misinterpreting a judge’s order, right-wing media have convinced themselves that Michael Flynn is about to reverse his guilty plea https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/02/21/misinterpreting-judge-s-order-right-wing-media-have-convinced-themselves-michael-flynn-about-reverse/219447

Notably, McCarthy and York placed the same sizable caveat in their pieces: In McCarthy’s words, “It could be that this is just Judge Sullivan’s standard order on exculpatory information, filed in every case over which he presides.” But oddly, while such caveats implicitly acknowledge that the story would be much less interesting if Sullivan is among the federal judges who issue standing Brady orders for every one of the criminal cases on their dockets, neither writer seems to have actually bothered to check if that is actually his practice.

I checked, and it is. As he explained in a 2016 law review article calling for the amendment of the rules of federal criminal procedure to incorporate such disclosures, “I now issue a standing Brady Order in each criminal case on my docket, which I update as the law in the area progresses.” Thus, Sullivan’s action was not “unusual” or “curious,” but simply what he does in every single criminal case he oversees.

Napolitano and his ilk seem to have picked up the story York and McCarthy put forth, but stripped off their caveat and instead asserted as fact that Sullivan’s action must be because he suspects some sort of malfeasance from Mueller, or even because, as Napolitano suggested, Flynn was not guilty to begin with.
February 21, 2018

Breaking: Legal Team Led by David Boies and LULAC Files Lawsuits Challenging Winner-Take-All Approa

Source: Election Law Blog

A coalition of law firms led by David Boies of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, and The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) today announced the filing of four landmark lawsuits challenging the winner-take-all method states use to allocate their Electoral College votes. By magnifying the impact of some votes and disregarding others, the winner-take-all system is not only undemocratic, but it also violates the Constitutional rights of free association, political expression, and equal protection under the law. These suits aim to restore those rights nationwide.

The non-partisan effort will draw on the resources of several law firms in advancing legal challenges in two states that are solidly blue, Massachusetts and California, and two others that are solidly red, South Carolina and Texas. All four suits are designed to uphold the Constitution’s guarantee that every vote—whether for a Republican, a Democrat, or third-party candidate—will be treated equally.

Read more: http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97652

February 20, 2018

Mueller-charged lawyer Alex Van der Zwaan has a curious link to the Steele dossier

The Steele Dossier is being confirmed and validated on a daily basis https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/mueller-indicted-lawyer-alex-van-der-zwaan-curious-link-steele-dossier-thats-not/

Van der Zwaan’s father-in-law German Khan is a co-founder of Alfa Bank, which fell under FBI investigation for attempting repeatedly to link up to a computer server in Trump Tower during the presidential campaign.

FBI investigators concluded the Trump Organization server appeared to be controlled by the marketing firm Cendyn, which was blasting out emails promoting Trump-branded hotel properties.

Khan and Alfa Bank showed up repeatedly in the dossier produced by former British spy Christopher Steele, who misspelled the bank as “Alpha Bank.”

The billionaire Khan, who showed up in a recent list of Russian oligarchs with ties to Vladimir Putin, has sued Steele for libel.

Profile Information

Member since: Mon Apr 5, 2004, 04:58 PM
Number of posts: 145,046
Latest Discussions»LetMyPeopleVote's Journal