The Senate Rules Committee sent the nominations of four Federal Election Commission (FEC) commissioners to the full Senate floor, but did so without a recommendation to approve or reject the nominees after Rules Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) expressed concern that nominee Hans von Spakovsky was "not an unbiased individual." Von Spakovsky's confirmation hearing, in June focused on his time at the Justice Department. He has been accused of politicizing the department's voting rights section causing civil rights groups and many others to vigorously oppose his confirmation.

The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights sent a letter to Feinstein last week strongly urging against his confirmation. The letter stated; "Mr. von Spakovsky is one of the architects of the Bush Administration's voter suppression efforts targeting minority voters. From 2001 to 2005, as an official at the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, von Spakovsky helped steer the federal government toward voting rights policies not seen before, imposing sweeping restrictions that would make it harder for poor and minority voters to cast ballots."

Read the story covered by The Hill, Washington Post, and Roll Call($$) among many others.

The Supreme Court will decide whether an Indiana law requiring voters to present photo identification at polling places unfairly discriminates against poor and minority voters. Several other states have enacted various forms of voter ID legislation and the court's ruling could also affect them as well. Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP and the Indiana Democratic Party filed appeals, arguing that the photo rule would deny some citizens the right to vote. In January the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upheld the voter identification law. The case will be heard in January and the justices' ruling will be due by the end of June. Their decision could have a major effect on the 2008 presidential election and on congressional races in several states. This New York Times column, "Fear but Few Facts in Debate on Voter I.D.'s" has additional background information.

Meanwhile Demos, a policy research and advocacy organization, has recently issued a new report on voter fraud.

The Federal Circuit upheld a rule banning "policy commentary" on land owned by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA). The suit Preminger v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs stems from a voter registration drive at a homeless shelter and nursing home.

The VA rule bans commentary and policy discussion unless the speaker is "authorized." 38 C.F.R. 1.218 (a)(14) states; "For the purpose of the prohibition expressed in this paragraph, unauthorized demonstrations or services shall be defined as [. . .] partisan activities, i.e., those involving commentary or actions in support of, or in opposition to, or attempting to influence, any current policy of the Government of the United States, or any private group, association, or enterprise." This case challenged the VA's exclusion of nonpartisan voter registration workers.

The Florida branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Haitian-American Grassroots Coalition filed suit in a US District Court to have a state election law thrown out that could disenfranchise eligible citizens from registering and voting in the 2008 elections. The law prevents voters from registering if their driver's licenses or Social Security information does not match what is on the registration form. Opponents say the law wrongly prevented thousands of Florida residents from voting in 2006. Such common mistakes that can prevent someone from registering to vote include having a maiden name on a driver's license. For more information, see the Brennan Center for Justice.

A coalition of organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, the N.A.A.C.P., Common Cause Georgia, the League of Women Voters, and others challenged Georgia's voter ID law, but a federal judge ruled that the groups did not successfully prove that the law placed "an undue or significant burden" on the right to vote. U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy of Rome on Thursday ordered the dismissal of the lawsuit, and the ID law will be in effect for a September 18th election.

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee approved S. 453, the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007, legislation intended to punish voter intimidation. As expected according to CQ ($$), the committee removed language that would allow private parties to bring lawsuits to block deceptive voting practices. This makes the language more alike a companion bill in the House, HR 1281 which passed in June.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., introduced the measure in January with the broad language to allow private parties rather than just the Justice Department to bring lawsuits. Such a private right of action is unusual and has generated concerns from the Justice Department. Even some civil rights groups worry that it could result in harassment lawsuits aimed at inhibiting voting, said Tanya Clay House, an attorney with the liberal group People for the American Way. In place of that broader private right of action, the bill's sponsors — who include Democrats Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts — are expected to substitute language that would limit private parties to obtaining injunctions against the Justice Department to force compliance with the legislation's requirements.