by Suevon Lee, ProPublica.

1/7/2013: This story has been corrected.

U.S. gun policy is set by both state and federal law. We previously published an explainer on the ways states have eased gun restrictions. But federal policy, too, has become more gun-friendly in recent years — and we’re not just talking about the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that struck down the handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and held that people have a right to keep guns in their homes.

Here, we outline five federal policies relating to guns you may not have known about:

1. A federal firearms trace database is off-limits to the public.

How often do federally licensed gun dealers sell guns that are then used in crimes? It’s hard to know, because for nearly a decade such gun-trace data has been hidden from the public. Even local law enforcement had been, until recently, barred from accessing the database for anything but narrow investigations.

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, licensed dealers are required to record certain information about a buyer and the gun’s serial number at the point of sale. When a gun is recovered from a crime scene, local law enforcement agencies can request The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to trace the firearm’s origins. The retrieved information is compiled into a crime gun-trace database maintained by ATF. A tool to catch criminals, the database in the early 2000s became a political flashpoint, as the Washington Post details. Outside research tying seized guns to a small handful of dealers spurred the federal government to impose tougher sanctions and inspections on gun retailers and manufacturers.

But those sanctions sparked a backlash: Since 2003, the Tiahrt Amendments, so named after the former Kansas Republican congressman who introduced the measures, have concealed the database from the public. Prior to 2010, local police could access the database only to investigate an individual crime, but not to look for signs of broader criminal activity.

Despite the relaxing of some restrictions, parts of the original Tiahrt Amendment remain in place. The ATF can’t require gun dealers to conduct an inventory to account for lost or stolen guns, records of customer background checks must be destroyed within 24 hours if they are clean enough to allow the sale, and trace data can’t be used in state civil lawsuits or in an effort to suspend or revoke a gun dealer’s license.

2. The military can’t impose additional regulations on servicemembers who own guns.

Following the November 2009 shooting at Fort Hood military base in Texas that killed 13 people and wounded more than two dozen others, the Department of Defense proposed guidelines that included, among other things, a new policy around private firearms. (The semiautomatic pistol used by accused gunman Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was purchased at a store off-base.)

Consideration of tighter gun regulations, such as the registering of non-military guns, sparked at least one new piece of federal legislation.

Less than a year after the shooting, U.S. senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) introduced a bill prohibiting new regulations on defense department personnel’s private guns. It also prohibited commanders from inquiring into private gun ownership. At the time, Inhofe stated that the measure would “prevent current and potential Second Amendment violations for those serving and employed by the Department of Defense.”

There has been a recent revision: In the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act  just passed by Congress, a new provision does allow military commanders to ask about private firearms if there is reason to believe a servicemember is at high risk of committing suicide.

“It codifies the ability of military commanders to have a conversation with someone they feel is suicidal. This is all about conversation, not confiscation,” said John Madigan, senior director of public policy at The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, which pushed for the measure.

3. You can carry a gun inside a national park or check a gun when riding Amtrak.

In 2009, Congress passed a measure, tucked into a larger credit card reform bill, to allow visitors to national parks and wildlife refuges to carry a loaded firearm. (Previously, the guns had to be locked, unloaded and stowed away). Under the amendment, which took effect February 2010, visitors can carry firearms only in those parks located in states that permit concealed guns in their own state parks. Although the U.S. Department of the Interior had lifted the 25-year ban the year before the law passed, a federal judge had blocked implementation after gun control groups objected.

Also in 2009, Congress voted to allow customers riding Amtrak to check guns and ammunition in their luggage. (Though airlines have a similar policy, the federally subsidized national rail service barred guns in any luggage, checked or carry-on, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.) In a statement shortly before the measure took effect, its sponsor, Republican senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi, said it would provide “hunters, sportsmen, and gun owners with more choices for traveling.”

4. The gun industry is shielded from many lawsuits involving criminal misuse of guns.

In 2005, Congress enacted a law that immunizes gun dealers and manufacturers from liability for injuries resulting in the “criminal or unlawful misuse” of a firearm. The law authorized dismissal of any applicable pending lawsuits and prohibited future claims.

During floor debate, the bill’s primary sponsor, former Idaho Republican senator Larry Craig, said the measure wouldn’t provide the gun industry with blanket immunity, just prohibit “one extremely narrow category of lawsuits: lawsuits that attempt to force the gun industry to pay for the crimes of third parties over whom they have no control.”

Indeed, the 2005 law provides for certain exceptions, including cases in which a gun dealer or manufacturer is aware the firearm will be used to a commit a crime and the suit is brought by the victim directly harmed. The law also allows suits based on a manufacturing or design defect, but not for lacking certain safety features.

Under the law, it would be much harder to obtain a settlement of the kind that families of the victims in the Washington-area sniper shootings of 2002 received. In 2004, those families won a $2.5 million settlement from the manufacturer of the Bushmaster XM-15 assault rifle used in the shootings and from the licensed Tacoma,WA store from where the gun was stolen.

“The law has not stopped gun litigation, but it has created an obstacle for litigation,” said Jonathan E. Lowy, director of the Legal Action Project at The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which filed the lawsuit, alleging that the defendants’ negligence allowed the snipers to obtain the firearm. “Today, you would almost certainly face motions to dismiss by the dealer and manufacturer, and there is a significant number of judges who would dismiss the case,” he said.

5. Congress has removed federal funding for firearms-related research.

Funding used to be set aside for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research the impact of gun ownership — but that was taken away in the mid-90s.

The New York Timesexplains that as the CDC became “increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon,” the National Rifle Association assailed its findings as politically skewed and lobbied to defund research.

One study commissioned by the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control found that the risks of keeping a gun in the home outweigh the benefits: “A gun kept in the home is far more likely to be involved in the death of a family member of the household than it is to be used to kill in self-defense,” its authors wrote in 1993.

In 1996, an amendment proposed by then-Arkansas Republican congressman Jay Dickey removed $2.6 million from the center’s budget, the same amount earmarked for firearms research. When funding to CDC was later restored, legislation included the directive that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” Critics charge that language had a chilling effect on CDC’s support for gun-related research.

The CDC Injury Center today collects data generally on homicides, suicides and injuries in homes, schools and communities. But when it comes to firearms-specific research, “I never heard the money was replaced,” said Dr. David Satcher, the former U.S. Surgeon General who served as CDC’s director from 1993 to 1998 and now leads The Satcher Health Leadership Institute at Morehouse School of Medicine.

“I don’t think this (1993) study was saying the government should take guns away from people. I think it was saying people should know what happens when you have a gun,” Satcher told ProPublica. “A major benefit of that kind of research is, it keeps informing and updating people: What do we know about gun violence? What do we know about the benefits of owning a gun? I think those are the kinds of questions we need to ask in public health.”

Correction: This story has been corrected to note that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives collects trace data only for guns involved in a criminal investigation. A previous version of the story incorrectly stated that the ATF maintains a general database of guns purchased from licensed dealers.

Photo credit: AP/Robert Ray

by Suevon Lee,ProPublica.

Political spending by gun rights groups far outweighs that by gun control groups. Here, we break down just how wide the discrepancy is.

We define gun rights groups as nonprofit organizations that lobby Congress and advocate on behalf of the ownership and use of firearms, and we define gun control groups as nonprofit organizations that lobby Congress and advocate for gun control legislation. (Where relevant, we’ve also included donations from Super PACs where gun control policy is a major focus.)

We’ve honed in on the largest and most prominent of these special interest groups. See how their spending breaks down

Federal Campaign Contributions

$3.13 million: Total amount of top campaign contributions by gun rights interest groups in 2012

96: Percent of the above figure donated to Republicans

$1.1 million: Total campaign contributions by the National Rifle Association, the nation’s largest gun rights group, in 2012

89: Percent of the above figure donated to Republicans

$4,036: Total campaign contributions by gun control interest groups in 2012

100: Percent of the above figure donated to Democrats

$581,394: Largest-ever total of campaign contributions from the gun control lobby (in 2000)

Independent Expenditures

(defined by the Federal Election Commission as an advertisement “expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate”)

$18.2 million: NRA’s reported independent expenditures in the 2012 election cycle

$11.4 million: How much the NRA spent against all Democratic candidates in 2012

$8.2 million: How much the NRA spent against President Obama in 2012

$0: Reported independent expenditures in the 2012 election cycle by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the largest grassroots organization dedicated to gun control measures

$3.3 million: Amount spent by Independence USA PAC, a Super PAC founded by New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg in 2012 that focuses on issues of gun control, school reform and marriage equality, to help unseat former U.S. Rep. Joe Baca (R-CA), known to be pro-gun rights

$460,850: Amount spent by Independence USA PAC this election to help unseat former U.S. Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle, (R-NY), known to oppose restrictions on gun ownership

Lobbying

$3.8 million: Amount that gun rights groups on the whole spent lobbying Congress in 2012

$2.2 million: Amount that the NRA spent lobbying Congress in 2012

66: Number of congressional bills NRA lobbied on behalf of in 2012

242: Number of U.S. House lawmakers to whom NRA has given an “A” rating

146: Number of U.S. House lawmakers to whom NRA has given a “D” or “F” rating

46: Number of U.S. Senate lawmakers to whom NRA has given an “A” rating

35: Number of U.S. Senate lawmakers to whom NRA has given a “D” or “F” rating

$180,000: Amount that gun control groups on a whole spent lobbying Congress in 2012

83: Percent of the above figure spent solely by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a coalition of mayors founded in 2006 dedicated to promoting gun control initiatives

$960,000: Largest-ever amount the Brady Campaign spent on lobbying (in 2004)

$30,000: Amount the Brady Campaign spent lobbying Congress in 2012

36: Number of congressional bills the Brady Campaign lobbied on behalf of in 2012

$2.1 million: Largest-ever amount gun control groups on a whole spent lobbying Congress (in 2001)

 Revenue

$228 million: NRA’s total revenue in 2010 (most recent year available)

$107 million: Total amount NRA collected from membership dues and fees in 2010

781: Number of NRA employees in 2010

125,000: Number of NRA volunteers in 2010

4 million: Current estimated number of NRA members

300,000: Estimated membership of Gun Owners of America, another gun rights lobbying group

$970,300: Total compensation for NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre in 2010

$1.1 million: Total compensation for NRA Executive Director of General Operations Kayne Robinson in 2010

$19.8 million – $52.6 million: Estimated contribution range to NRA from outside corporations since 2005 through a corporate-giving program, per a report by the Violence Policy Center, a nonprofit organization that advocates for stricter gun control

74: Percent of the above amount contributed by the firearms industry (manufacturers and sellers of guns and gun products)

$11 billion: Estimated revenue in 2012 by the gun and ammunitions industry

$2.9 million: Brady Campaign’s total revenue in 2010 (most recent year available)

16: Number of Brady Campaign employees in 2010

500: Number of Brady Campaign volunteers in 2010

$264,870: Total compensation for Brady Campaign’s then-president Paul Helmke in 2010

$2.7 million: Total revenue drawn by Mayors Against Illegal Guns Action Fund in 2010

Photo credit: AP/Evan Vucci

by Suevon Lee, ProPublica.

Friday’s deadly rampage at a Connecticut elementary school marked the 13th mass shooting in the United States this year. Among the 11 deadliest shootings in U.S. history, more than half took place in the last five years. During the same period, states have often relaxed their gun laws, making it easier for individuals to obtain guns, extending the places where concealed guns are permitted, or giving gun owners more robust protections.

We take a closer look at some of the more striking measures:

1. Five states allow students to carry concealed guns on college campuses     

A March 2012 Colorado Supreme Court decision held that the University of Colorado could not ban students and employees with state-issued concealed-weapon permits from carrying guns on campus. The decision overturned the university’s long-standing gun ban. While school policy prohibits guns at ticketed athletic and cultural events, Boulder and Colorado Springs’ campuses now designate dorms for permit-carrying students. (Guns are still banned in other dorms). “Not a single student has asked to live where guns are allowed,” the Denver Post reported last month.

In September 2011, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued a similar ruling, allowing guns on campuses throughout the Oregon University system.

Wisconsin passed legislation in 2011 allowing college students in the University of Wisconsin school system to bring a concealed weapon onto campus grounds, parking lots and “other spaces that aren’t enclosed,” according to the Wisconsin State Journal. The school can prohibit guns in buildings, but only if signs are posted at each entrance.

A law passed by the Mississippi State Legislature in 2011 broadly extended the places where concealed weapons are allowed, including college campuses, secondary schools, courthouses, polling locations, churches, bars and passenger terminals of an airport — places previously off limits. This year, the University of Mississippi, which previously required students to leave guns in their vehicles, began allowing students to bring concealed weapons on campus, provided they have a concealed-weapons permit and take an eight-hour training course.

Utah grants the least discretion: Since 2004, the state has prohibited any public college or university from banning concealed weapons, as campuses are considered state property.

2. Some states now allow you to bring guns into daycare centers, churches, and even “gun-free zones”

Last week, the Michigan Legislature passed a law that would allow concealed weapons in current “gun-free” zones such as schools, daycare centers, bars, churches, hospitals and stadiums. Gun owners are required to receive eight hours of extra training before bringing guns into these places. The bill, which has yet to be signed into law, gives private business owners discretion to ban firearms on their property.

While Michigan’s legislation has gained attention given its timing to Friday’s shooting, it’s far from the only law of its kind. As we’ve already noted, Mississippi has also expanded the list of permissible concealed-carry locations.

Elsewhere, loaded guns in bars are now allowed in Tennessee, Arizona, Georgia, Virginia and Ohio. Georgia lawmakers introduced legislation earlier this year that would expand the list of places where you can bring in a concealed weapon, proposing to allow them in colleges, places of worship and polling places.

Virginia, Louisiana and Maine allow firearms to be carried in state parks, state historic sites and state preservation areas. Recently passed federal legislation also allows the carrying of loaded guns in national parks, but only if state laws don’t interject.

3. You don’t have to be 18 years old or sober to lawfully use a gun in some states

In Missouri, it’s no longer a crime for an intoxicated person to handle or fire a gun, as long as they were acting in self-defense.

Federal law prohibits licensed firearms dealers from selling a shotgun or rifle to anyone under 18, or handguns to anyone under 21. Still, some states impose minimum age limits that go below these federal limits.

For instance, in Vermont, it’s legal to sell a handgun or rifle to 16-year-olds. It’s legal to sell a rifle to a 16-year-old in Maine, Alaska, Minnesota or New York. In Montana, the legal age is 14, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a non-profit organization that tracks state gun laws.

4. Eight states have (symbolically) asserted their freedom to be exempt from federal gun regulation

Current federal gun laws set baseline standards regarding the sale and possession of guns. For instance, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requires licensed gun dealers to perform background checks on prospective gun purchasers. And agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives can conduct warrantless inspections of any licensed gun dealer — although, as we’ve previously noted, its authority has been hamstrung in recent years.

Still, eight states have passed resolutions stating that guns manufactured in-state shouldn’t be subject to federal regulation: Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota, Utah, Arizona, Tennessee and Alaska.

The Montana gun activist behind the state’s legislation, whom the Wall Street Journal profiled, explained he felt he should be “free from federal laws requiring him to record transactions, pay license fees and open his business to government inspectors.”

The states’ moves are basically symbolic. The states are still following the few federal rules that exist.

But that could change. Montana Shooting Sports Association and Second Amendment Foundation have filed a lawsuit in federal court to enforce the law.

5. Some states want to make it a crime for doctors and employers to ask about your gun

In 2011, Florida became the first state to enact a law prohibiting any health care professional from asking patients whether they own guns or store them safely. A federal judge later struck down the law based on free speech grounds, stating that a physician who “counsels a patient on firearm safety “does not affect or interfere with the patient’s right to continue to own, possess or use firearms.”

Other states have followed in Florida’s footsteps: Alabama and North Carolina have introduced similar legislation in the last year.

In 2010, Indiana made it easier for people to store guns in their vehicles in a workplace parking lot. A year later, Indiana passed a law allowing job applicants and current employees to sue a private or public employer for requiring disclosure of firearm ownership or use.

6. Nearly half of states have adopted some type of “Stand Your Ground,” or “Shoot First” law

Florida and 24 other states have enacted “Stand Your Ground” laws that expand a person’s right to self-defense. Under these laws, individuals no longer have a duty to retreat to avoid confrontation in any place he or she has a right to be.

Florida was the first state to introduce such a law in 2005 — and many other states have followed suit. The law came under the national spotlight when an unarmed 17-year-old teen, Trayvon Martin, was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch guard in Florida earlier this year. The shooter, George Zimmerman, was not initially charged with a crime; he has since been charged with second-degree murder and awaits trial.

7. A few states make it easy for even violent felons to get their gun rights restored

The New York Timesconducted an extensive investigation into this issue last year. The story reports that in 11 states, nonviolent felons have automatic restoration of their gun rights while a handful of other states allow felons convicted of violent crimes to regain their gun rights.

In Minnesota, for instance, violent felons can petition a court to regain their gun rights by showing “good cause.” There is no waiting period. In Ohio, a violent felon need only demonstrate to a judge that he or she has “led a law-abiding life” since they left prison. In Washington State, felons can get their gun rights restored as long as they haven’t been convicted of any new crimes in five years. Under Washington State’s Hard Time for Armed Crime Act, judges actually have no discretion to deny restoration based on a felon’s character or mental health.

Felons in other states have other ways to get their guns back: Georgia and Nebraska have granted a high number of pardons to restore felons’ right to bear arms even for those convicted of crimes like voluntary manslaughter or armed robbery.

And Montana makes it possible for felons to get their gun rights restored as long as they didn’t use a dangerous weapon in the commission of their crime.

by Suevon Lee, ProPublica.

Voter ID laws were one of the most contentious issues of the past election season. (Here is everything you need to know about the laws.) Proponents insisted IDs should be required at polling places in order to thwart fraud. But there has been little evidence of such fraud and Democrats argued that the laws were meant to suppress voters.

The impact of the laws on this past election isn’t clear. But one thing is clear: There are still pushes for the laws in many states.

So what happens next?

We’ve rounded up the places that could see voter ID in future elections, the status of laws still pending and what effect, if any, this year’s pushback against voter ID will have going forward.

Just to refresh, which states actually have photo ID laws?

Four states require voters to present a valid form of photo identification in order to cast a regular, not provisional, ballot: Indiana, Georgia, Kansas, and Tennessee. The latter two phased in the law just this year; Indiana has had it since 2006 and Georgia, 2008.

Meanwhile, Pennsylvania, battleground for one of the fiercest disputes over the issue this year, required poll workers to request ID from voters — though voters had no obligation to present one.

And New Hampshire permitted voters without photo ID to still cast a regular ballot, as long as they signed a form affirming they were who they said they were.

So, there weren’t actually many places in the country where photo IDs were required to vote?

Correct. As we’ve laid out before, due largely to court rulings and robust opposition from the Justice Department, newly passed voter ID laws didn’t play nearly as big a role in the election this year as they otherwise might have. (In Minnesota, a ballot measure proposing voter ID was defeated after failing to get majority support.)

Could that change next year?

Yes. South Carolina and Pennsylvania have both passed voter ID laws. Judges suspended them for the past election, ruling there was too little time to implement the new law without the risk of disenfranchising voters. But the laws will be in effect next time around.

Pennsylvania’s voter ID law is set to take effect in time for the state’s May 2013 local primaries.

In other states, it isn’t so clear.

After its voter ID law was rejected by federal judges in August, Texas pledged to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. That appeal may have to wait, though, until the Court rules on the Constitutional merits of a special provision of the Voting Rights Act next June.

Voter ID laws in Mississippi and Alabama are also on hold, awaiting federal review.

Where else have lawmakers expressed interest in voter ID laws?

In lots of states. A Montana state representative has proposed a bill that would restrict valid voter ID to Montana driver’s licenses, state ID cards for non-drivers and tribal ID cards. (Not even passports would qualify.)

Wisconsin’s incoming state assembly leader and Missouri Republicans want to push through voter ID laws via Constitutional amendment. Iowa’s secretary of state, who’s been aggressive about targeting voter fraud, is also still pushing for an ID law.

In North Carolina, the newly elected Republican governor has voiced support for a voter ID law to “protect the integrity of the voting system.”

“I don’t want Chicago politics to come to North Carolina,” incoming Gov. Pat McCrory told the Charlotte Observer shortly before the election.

In Nevada, Democratic secretary of state Ross Miller doesn’t want to actually require voters to bring photo identification to the polls, but proposes connecting the state’s voter rolls with photos from the state Department of Motor Vehicles so a poll worker can compare a voter name with an image.

Now that the election is over, how many instances of voter fraud have we actually seen?

There have been a handful of reports, most of which have arisen from a basic misunderstanding or a deliberate attempt to commit an infraction to prove a point.

Is there any evidence that voter ID laws suppress minority turnout as critics charge?

It’s still not clear.

“We don’t know any more than we did before,” said Charles Stewart III, a political science professor at MIT who specializes in elections. “It’s too early to put the data together even. Any change in requirements relating to voter registration and access typically has a change by one or two percentage points. When you’re talking about that size, it’s very hard to tease out the data.”

Reuters reports that in states that have had the law on the books for a few years — Indiana and Georgia — turnout and registration actually increased after the laws took effect. (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution also notes that turnout among black and Hispanic voters in Georgia increased from 2006 to 2010.)

But there are important variables to consider: 2008 was also a historic presidential election that drove up voter turnout around the country.

Furthermore, Georgia, unlike other strict photo ID law states, issues a free photo ID for those who don’t have one. (Reuters reports that about 28,648 such voter cards were distributed since 2006.)

Justin Levitt, associate professor of law at Loyola Law School, said it will still take several more election cycles before the impact of voter ID laws can be discerned, just “to sort the turnout effect of ID laws from all of the other factors” — like campaign spending, the weather, and choice of candidates.

“There’s very little that we can learn about the effect from the election results or turnout figures this cycle, because the strictest laws weren’t generally in effect,” he told ProPublica.

Can we expect to see another wave of legislation over voter ID laws?

Perhaps, but it’s too early to tell.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, more than 30 states introduced some form of voter ID legislation in both 2011 and 2012.

“What we don’t know is if from 2013 to 2014, we’re going to see that same phenomenon at that same level,” said Ned Foley, a professor of election law at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.

Election Day concerns that affect larger swaths of voters may eventually eclipse the push for such laws.

“Other issues of election administration are likely to re-emerge as becoming more critical, such as long lines, or voting machines that are about to fail,” said MIT’s Stewart. Those are issues “felt by a great number of voters, regardless of race or party.”

Still, voter ID laws are going to be an ongoing issue.

“In the short term, these ID bills might be submerged,” said Stewart. “But I don’t think they’re going to go away forever.”

Photo credit: Associated Press

by Suevon Lee, ProPublica.

Elaine Schmottlach has been a ballot clerk in the small southeastern New Hampshire town of Nottingham — population, 4,785 — for the last 25 years. Yet when it came time for her to vote on Nov. 6, she had to show valid photo identification as required under a new state law.

Schmottlach refused and submitted a challenged voter affidavit instead.

“My view is this is a horrendous law,” she told ProPublica. “I absolutely detest it. I hated having to ask my best friend to show an ID to prove that she is who she is.”

Schmottlach’s act of defiance didn’t have much effect — this time. Her vote still counted, she wasn’t handed a provisional ballot and she wasn’t required to return to the poll with ID. But that could change in future elections under New Hampshire’s plans to phase in the new law.

In the months leading up to the election, voter ID laws were seen as the biggest threat to voter turnout: More than 30 states have passed such laws, which require voters to provide some type of identification at the polls (see our previous explainer).

But many of these laws, particularly the ones requiring strict photo identification, met setbacks ahead of the election. A state judge ruled in October that Pennsylvania’s law couldn’t be implemented this election, while federal judges refused to allow similar measures take effect this year  in Texas and South Carolina.

A week before the election, the Brennan Center for Justice concluded that “for the overwhelming majority of those whose rights were most at risk, the ability to vote will not be at issue on November 6.”

Experts agree that much-assailed voter ID laws were less an issue in this election than limited early-voting hours, lengthy ballots and precincts shuttered after Hurricane Sandy. These issues contributed to long wait times, prompting some to simply throw up their hands and give up on voting.

“Of all the issues relating to voting rules, voter ID got the most attention but was probably the least significant, mainly because we didn’t have it in Pennsylvania,” said Rick Hasen, a professor at the University of California-Irvine who specializes in election law.

In Pennsylvania, where some feared the state’s continuing efforts to advertise the new law would confuse voters, election officials were required to ask voters for ID , but were not allowed to prevent anyone from casting a ballot for failure to produce one.

“On November 6, it was a dry run just as it was in the (April 24) primary,” said Ellen Kaplan, vice president and policy director at the Committee of Seventy, a non-partisan voter education group in Philadelphia. “We don’t know how many people might have been confused and didn’t show up. Among the people that did show up, there was certainly some confusion out there. But I wouldn’t characterize it as so overwhelming that it disrupted the voting process.”

In December, a state judge is expected to hear arguments to permanently block the controversial law.

In Virginia, which instituted a voter ID law approved by the Justice Department in August, watchdog groups reported few disruptions. (The state has a less stringent law, accepting non-photo IDs such as recent utility bills, bank statements or paystubs.)

The Virginia State Board of Elections estimated that there were 543 provisional ballots cast as a result of voters lacking valid ID — representing less than 5 percent of the total number of provisional ballots cast statewide.

In Tennessee, where a new photo voter ID law went into effect this year, the Secretary of State’s Office reported no negative impact on turnout, reporting turnout rates “consistent with past presidential elections,” said Communications Director Blake Fontenay.

“If anything, the law may have encouraged more people to vote because they were more confident their ballots would not be canceled out by ballots cast by ineligible voters,” Fontenay told ProPublica.

Out of 2.45 million ballots cast statewide, 674 Tennessee voters filled out provisional ballots for lacking acceptable photo ID.

New Hampshire Deputy Secretary of State Dave Scanlan said that while the state doesn’t have a final tally on voters who filled out challenged voter affidavit forms as a result of lacking ID, the number “appears to be quite low — possibly less than 1 percent.”

Elsewhere, there have been reports that momentum against voter ID laws, seen by critics to disproportionately affect minority, elderly and poor voters, actually helped turnout, but the evidence is  spotty.

According to a preliminary analysis by the Committee of Seventy, voter turnout in Philadelphia decreased from 61.6 percent in 2008 to 59.7 percent this year. The group’s data also shows that Barack Obama won the city by a comparable margin this year — 467,000 votes — to four years ago, when his edge was 461,670 votes.

As Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight blog notes, voter turnout across the county, particularly in states pushing for new voter ID laws, was all over the map, according to the early estimates. Virginia saw a slight increase, New Hampshire stayed virtually the same, while Pennsylvania cast fewer votes than in 2008.

All this doesn’t mean that voting was problem-free. According to The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a national election law hotline fielded roughly 90,000 concerned calls this Election Day, down from 100,000 in 2008. Many of the calls were related to antiquated voting machines, names not appearing on voter registration rolls, and polling place confusion.

“What we saw, by and large, was the same problems we’ve seen over the last 10 years,” said Eric Marshall, manager of legal mobilization for the Lawyers’ Committee. “The biggest theme was the recurring problems: the more things change, the more things stay the same.”

Photo credit: AP/J Pat Carter

by Suevon Lee, ProPublica.

Get ready. Here are all the things that could go wrong (or already have) as Americans head to the polls.

1. Confusion over voter ID laws spurred by ongoing ads, litigation and misinformation

Despite a state judge’s Oct. 2 ruling that Pennsylvania voters are not required to show photo ID this election, the state is continuing with a $5 million ad campaign to broadcast the future requirement: “Show It,” the ad slogan reads, with the words, “if you have it,” in fine print. (Here’s our guide on everything you need to know about voter ID laws.)

A spokesman for the secretary of state told The Washington Post these ads remain “faithful” to the judge’s ruling, which held that elections officials could still ask voters for identification, just not require it.

In addition, the state’s largest utility company, PECO, sent a courtesy newsletter out to 1.3 million customers in seven counties informing them they’d need valid photo ID to vote — though by that time the judge had already ruled they don’t have to.

In Missouri, the Republican candidate for secretary of state is running on a platform favoring a new voter ID law. Because the state doesn’t currently have a photo ID requirement — since the courts struck it down — the outgoing secretary of state has said the campaign focus on photo ID is potentially confusing for voters.

In Tennessee, where a voter ID law went into effect this year, state officials were instructing some counties not to honor photo library cards as an acceptable form of voter ID. The city of Memphis sued, and just last week, the Tennessee Supreme Court issued the final word: It affirmed a lower court’s ruling that voters can cast regular ballots using free library cards.

2. Disruptions caused by Hurricane Sandy — not just in the Northeast

The destruction caused by the storm is expected to disrupt voting somewhat in solidly Democratic New York and New Jersey, but there are indications it is also causing complications for absentee voting in at least one presidential swing state.

Priya Sanghvi, a 28-year-old filmmaker from Arlington County, VA, requested an absentee ballot on time but didn’t get mail at her apartment in downtown New York City all last week. Some mail arrived on Saturday and Monday, but the absentee ballot wasn’t there.

When Sanghvi called the Arlington County registrar, who confirmed that her ballot had been sent out, and Virginia’s Board of Elections, officials told her their hands were tied: The deadline for returning mailed absentee ballots was 7 p.m. on Election Day.

“I’m at a loss,” Sanghvi told ProPublica. “I would literally have to get to Virginia to vote, which I’m not going to be able to do.”

It’s not clear how widespread absentee voting problems related to disruptions in postal service may be.

“We don’t keep statistics on the possible number of ballots that could be delayed due to Hurricane Sandy,” U.S. Postal Service spokesperson Darleen Reid told ProPublica in an email. “There is no way to determine this at this time.”

Arlington County Registrar Linda Lindberg told ProPublica her office had gotten “a few” calls from people whose absentee voting had been disrupted by the storm, including a voter sent to New York as part of the relief effort.

3. Frustration over shortened early voting in Florida has led to lawsuits

In Florida, the Republican-controlled legislature shortened the early voting time frame this year from 14 to eight days — excluding the Sunday before Election Day. The tighter window has resulted in long lines, frustration and litigation. (As we’ve also noted, Florida also has among the most confusing ballots in the country — and it’s really long.)

The Florida Democratic Party filed a federal lawsuit Sunday to compel the state to extend early voting hours — or to at least allow voters in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties to cast absentee ballots in person on Monday.

Long wait times prompted the League of Women Voters and the Florida Democratic Party last week to call for Florida Gov. Rick Scott to extend early voting hours in the state. Gov. Scott has refused that request.

4. Newly drawn districts may cause some voters to head to the wrong precinct

In South Carolina, according to the Spartanburg Herald Journal, up to “tens of thousands voters statewide” may have been issued absentee ballots that don’t correspond to their correct district. If a voter turns in an incorrect absentee ballot, he can’t vote again using a correct ballot, according to state elections officials.

Voters in other states may also face confusion fueled by redistricting.

5. Provisional ballots could be crucial — and take a really long time to count

In swing states such as Virginia and Ohio, provisional ballots could be the deciding factor — in 2008, more provisional ballots were cast in Ohio than in any other state besides California.

If a voter in Ohio applies for an absentee ballot, disregards it and shows up to vote on Election Day, the voter can only cast a provisional ballot, which won’t be counted until 11 days after Nov. 6. More on this can be found here.

In addition, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted has ordered county elections boards to reject provisional ballots where a voter doesn’t correctly list their ID information. (Ohio law states election officials are supposed to be the ones ensuring the correct information.) Voter advocacy groups have protested the order. A federal judge is expected to rule on the motion by Nov. 17, the first day provisional ballots will be counted in Ohio.

In Virginia, which has a photo ID law, many voters may be handed such provisional ballots if they can’t initially provide an acceptable form of ID.

6. Voter suppression via deceptive mailers, intimidating phone calls

Registered voters in Florida, Virginia and Indiana have received calls from phony elections officials encouraging them to “vote by phone.” The complaints have been reported by both Democrats and Republicans.

Voters in at least 23 Florida counties also received letters on “official-looking election office letterhead” questioning their citizenship and voter eligibility. The mailers, which have also apparently targeted both Republicans and Democrats, have sparked an FBI investigation.

One liberal organization recorded a Republican state party member instructing volunteer poll monitors in New Mexico to demand that voters produce ID and to prevent voters from requesting interpreters.

Some pamphlets in Maricopa County, Ariz., incorrectly listed Election Day as Nov. 8 on the Spanish language side of the ballot, even though the correct Nov. 6 date was printed on the English language side.

7. A tie in the Electoral College

If President Obama and Romney each receive the same number of electoral votes, the House decides the presidency and the Senate the vice-presidency.

In the event of an Electoral College tie, The New York Times reports, “strategists envision an intense post-election campaign of state-by-state recounts, lawsuits, qualification challenges, efforts to flip electors, horse trading and pressure on members of Congress,” resulting in “a highly volatile 11-week obstacle course to Inauguration Day.”

And of course, there doesn’t need to be tie for there to be recount chaos.

Photo by Vox Efx via Flickr.com

by Suevon LeeProPublica.

The Supreme Court has remained a largely unspoken topic on the campaign trail — even though the Court plays a critical function in Americans’ lives. (This past June’s Affordable Care Act ruling, anyone?)

The next president could very well appoint one or two new justices. And who steps down first could also depend on who’s elected.

Mitt Romney hasn’t said much about the Supreme Court, apart from expressing disagreement with the Court’s ruling on Obamacare. But his website states the candidate would nominate judges “in the mold of” the Court’s conservatives — Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts (the last two of whom then-Senator Obama voted against confirming). It also says Romney would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned.

President Obama, of course, has appointed two liberal justices, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, the nation’s first Hispanic justice. His past remarks indicate a preference for nominees who bring “common sense” and “pragmatism” to the table, who’d blend Constitutional analysis with “a sense of what real-world folks are going through.”

Legal challenges to such key social issues as same-sex marriage, gun rights, immigration and separation of church and state are likely to be heard by the Supreme Court in the coming years. One justice is all it may take to tip the scale in these cases.

So what exactly have the candidates said, and why hasn’t the Supreme Court been a bigger issue? Let’s take a look.

Mitt Romney

Romney has spoken out against the president’s first-term Supreme Court picks.

In April, Romney told the National Rifle Association that he’s opposed to judges “who view the Constitution as living and evolving, not timeless and defining.”

“In his first term, we’ve seen the president try to browbeat the Supreme Court. In a second term, he would remake it,” Romney said. “Our freedoms would be in the hands of an Obama Court, not just for four years, but for the next 40. That must not happen.”

Romney has occasionally embraced recent Supreme Court decisions. He praised the Court’s unanimous January 2012 ruling in a religious liberty case that allowed for a “ministerial exception” to employment discrimination laws. He favorably cited another unanimous March 2012 ruling that made it easier for property owners to challenge compliance orders from the Environmental Protection Agency.

The candidate has been vocal about abortion. In June 2011, Romney wrote that he felt Roe v. Wade was a “misguided ruling that was a result of a small group of activist federal judges legislating from the bench.” Early this year, Romney repeated that position, and again in April during an interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer.

His running mate, Paul Ryan, also touched on the Court’s role when it comes to abortion. “We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision; that people, through their elected representatives and reaching a consensus in society through the democratic process, should make this determination,” Ryan said in the vice-presidential debate.

As Vice President Joe Biden pointed out during this debate, one of the people heading Romney’s panel of advisors on judicial appointments is Robert Bork, a Reagan Supreme Court nominee who failed to win Senate confirmation in 1987 over fears he would vote to strike down a range of issues, including Roe v. Wade.

Biden, then the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, helped lead the opposition. The vacancy to which Bork was nominated eventually went to Justice Anthony Kennedy, typically the Court’s swing vote.

On another note, Romney would have a deep bench from which to select judicial nominees, given Republicans’ vigorous focus on this area. CNN has compiled a list of likely nominees, including former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement — who argued the Affordable Care Act challenge — and an assortment of conservative federal appellate judges.

“Romney would appoint people with a more conservative judicial philosophy, who are not transforming the Constitution, not sticking up for the rights of any particular group and are very neutrally interpreting the law,” said Curt Levey, president of Committee for Justice, an organization that promotes conservative judicial candidates.

President Obama

If Obama is re-elected, there is strong speculation that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court’s oldest member at 79, will retire to make room for a replacement. In that event, argue some, the president would likely nominate another woman (two other justices are also approaching their late 70s: Scalia and Kennedy are both 76.)

“[Obama] would place value on racial and ethnic diversity, but it wouldn’t be determinative,” said Tom Goldstein, co-founder and regular contributor to SCOTUSBlog, which provides news and analysis of the Court’s decisions. “President Obama hasn’t really pushed for very liberal nominees.”

Back in 2008, Obama shed light on his thoughts about the subject.

In remarks to the Detroit Free Press, then-Sen. Obama said he would seek Supreme Court nominees who recognize “that one of the roles of the courts is to protect people who don’t have a voice,” for instance, “the vulnerable, the minority, the outcast, the person with the unpopular idea, the journalist who is shaking things up.”

That same year, Obama, who taught Constitutional Law at University of Chicago Law School, praised former Justice David Souter and current Justice Stephen Breyer — both considered liberal votes — as “very sensible judges.”

“They believe in fidelity to the text of the Constitution, but they also think you have to look at what is going on around you and not just ignore real life,” he said.

Obama has made clear he supports Roe v. Wade, which has been narrowed in the face of new challenges.

In 2010, shortly after Justice John Paul Stevens announced his retirement, Obama told Senate lawmakers he’d apply no “litmus test” to potential nominees.

“But I will say that I want somebody who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account individual rights, and that includes women’s rights,” the president said, eventually nominating Kagan for the vacancy.

In February 2011, Obama spoke out against the Defense of Marriage Act, which seeks to impose a definition of marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman, and instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the law in court. A second federal appeals court recently struck down the law as unconstitutional; some predict the issue could next be headed to the Supreme Court.

Although the president has been criticized for taking his time with judicial appointments in the lower federal courts — a gateway to the Supreme Court — he’s also named more ethnic minorities to the bench than any of his predecessors.

More Discussion?

So, why hasn’t there been more discussion about the Supreme Court on the campaign trail? It’s a question that’s been raised again and again, especially since justices, who are appointed for life, serve on average about 30 years.

One possible explanation is that the Supreme Court strategically took itself out of the political calculus earlier this year when it narrowly upheld the health care law.

“[The issue] would have played out a little differently if the Supreme Court had struck down the health care act,” SCOTUSBlog’s Goldstein said. “It’s really hard for the president to run against the Court that has just upheld his signature legislative achievement by a whisker.”

But the silence could also just convey a perceived lack of interest among the public.

“I think the candidates realize that the Supreme Court doesn’t move independent voters,” said Goldstein, even though “the president makes a radical difference in the composition of the judiciary.”

Photo credit: AP/Charles Dharapak, File

by Suevon Lee, ProPublica

Are Big Bird’s 15 minutes up yet? Last week, Mitt Romney pulled public broadcasting into the presidential campaign when he said he would “stop the subsidy” to PBS, despite his love for the furry yellow Muppet.

The remark launched endless Internet memes, fueled late-night television jokes and spawned a satirical Obama campaign ad (which the Sesame Workshop, a private, non-partisan charitable organization, has requested the campaign pull). Given the recent flurry of attention, we thought it would be helpful to examine how much federal funding actually affects public broadcasting.

How large is the federal subsidy to public broadcasting?

It’s not exactly breaking the bank. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity created by Congress in 1967 to disperse funds to non-profit broadcast outlets like PBS and NPR, is set to receive $445 million over the next two years. Per a statutory formula, public television gets about 75 percent of this appropriation while public radio receives 25 percent.

This amounts to roughly .012 percent of the $3.8 trillion federal budget—or about $1.35 per person per year. Some global perspective: elsewhere in the world, Canada spends $22.48 per citizen, Japan $58.86 per citizen, the United Kingdom $80.36 per citizen, and Denmark, $101 per citizen.

This sounds like a drop in the bucket. Why would Romney focus on such a small figure?

Because Romney’s approach is to target every government program he thinks is “not essential.” The candidate’s current spending plan not only calls for eliminating Obamacare and privatizing Amtrak, but deep reductions in subsidies to CPB and cultural agencies such as the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities—expenditures he says are “things the American people can’t afford.”

Public broadcasting also happens to be a popular target among conservatives, who’ve long portrayed it as an example of wasteful government spending—in the mid-90s, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich proposed pulling federal funding from the CPB altogether.

Romney’s no exception on the campaign trail. As ABC News’ The Notereports, last week’s debate wasn’t the first time Romney has suggested Sesame Street seek outside advertisers to earn its keep. At a campaign stop last December, Romney told voters, “we’re not going to kill Big Bird, but Big Bird’s going to have to have advertisements, all right?”

How crucial is federal funding to public broadcasting?

Sesame Workshop’s executive vice president told CNN last week that the company receives “very, very little funding from PBS.” Indeed, the non-profit generated nearly two-thirds of its $133 million revenue in 2010 from royalties and product licensing alone, according to its website. Its executives are also handsomely compensated: former CEO and president Gary Knell (who now runs NPR) earned $718,456 in executive pay plus $270,000 in bonuses in 2010. So, as the Washington Postpoints out, Big Bird doesn’t exactly depend on the federal government for survival.

PBS draws roughly 15 percent of its revenue from the CPB. NPR’s revenue mostly comes from member station dues and fees, with 2 percent coming from CPB-issued grants. Member stations, in turn, receive about 11 percent in federal grants. According to this CPB report, most revenue to both public radio and television (about 59 percent) consists of donations from individuals, corporate underwriters and private grants, followed by state and local support (roughly 20 percent).

But from a leverage standpoint, PBS says it’s pretty important. Each federal dollar local stations receive generates roughly six dollars from local sources as a type of bargaining chip, according to a coalition of public broadcasting stations, producers and viewers.

Are there downsides to scaling back federal funding?

Yes. While shows like “Sesame Street” may remain safe under Romney’s plan, its viewers in remote areas wouldn’t fare as well. Public television and radio stations in poor, rural areas depend the most on federal support to survive. So while large public television markets producing more than $10 million in annual revenue require just 10 percent of federal funds to get by, its counterparts in small towns like Bethel, AL, or Odessa, TX, may very well need up to four times that much to operate.

How many markets could be at risk today?

A CPB-commissioned study released earlier this year estimated 54 public television stations (31 in rural areas) in 19 states are at “high risk” of going dark if stripped of federal funding. The study also found 76 public radio stations (47 in rural areas) in 38 states are at “high risk” of going silent without federal funding.

Aren’t there other sources of news, culture and entertainment over the airwaves?

Yes, but public broadcasting has a specific mission of bringing a distinct brand of educational and cultural programming—free of commercial trappings—to a broad swath of the American public.

In establishing the CPB 45 years ago, Congress envisioned a broadcasting service that would encourage development of programming to address “the needs of unserved and underserved audiences, particularly children and minorities,” and which could be made “available to all citizens of the United States.”

In some areas of the country, public broadcasting still remains the only option, commercial or otherwise: at least 10 public radio stations around the country offer the only broadcast service—radio or television included—to their community.

Have there been prior attempts to defund public broadcasting?

Yes. In 2010, a flap over the firing of former NPR contributor Juan Williams (now a Fox News contributor) for comments he made about Muslims heightened the cries to cut NPR off from federal grants. Last year, Republican lawmakers introduced legislation to block NPR from receiving such grants.

Today, conservatives also argue that the smorgasbord of media offerings renders the form of public television obsolete. As the National Review recently put it, “If PBS doesn’t do it, 10 million others will.” Others, like Time’s Michael Grunwald, argue that the right to watch commercial-free TV “does not strike me as a basic human right” and that if “private funders feel it’s important for South Dakotans to watch Big Bird, they can make that happen with their own tax-deductible contributions.”

Can public broadcasting turn to alternate forms of funding?

Yes, but with varying degrees of success. In recent years, budget cuts have forced states to decrease funding for public broadcasting, TheNew York Timesreported early this year. CPB also notes that revenue from individual donations went from $373 million in 1999 to $349 million in 2005.

CPB claims private advertising isn’t a solution—and at least one independent analysis estimated it could even lead to net losses by raising operating costs and diminishing support from corporate underwriters or private foundations. According to the report, “a shift to a commercial advertising model would lead to a chase for ratings and move public broadcasters off their fundamental role in lifting the educational and informational boat for all Americans.”

What’s the Obama administration’s stance?

In 2010, the president’s bipartisan deficit budget commission proposed cutting funding to CPB to reduce the federal deficit. But the campaign was quick to seize on the issue with its Big Bird ad. First Lady Michelle Obama followed suit, telling Virginia voters this week, “We all know good and well that cutting Sesame Street is no way to balance a budget.”

The candidates aside, what does the public think?

A March 2011 poll shows that more than two-thirds of the public opposes eliminating government funding for public broadcasting. A more recent poll indicates that 55 percent of voters oppose such cuts to public television.

Photo credit: AP/Matt Sayles, File

by Suevon Lee, ProPublica

Voter ID laws have received plenty of attention recently, but they’re not the only controversial changes to election rules this year. Some states have made changes that critics say could impact individuals’ ability to vote. Here are four.

Ohio won’t count provisional ballots mistakenly cast in the wrong precinct.

Four years ago in Ohio, there were 200,000 provisional ballots cast among a total 5.7 million votes. This was the most of any state other than California. (Federal law requires states to use provisional ballots when a voter’s eligibility is in question or if their registration doesn’t reflect a new name or address.)

But Ohio requires county election boards to reject provisional ballots if the ballot doesn’t correspond to the voter’s assigned precinct—even if it was the poll worker’s mistake. A few other states have similar rules, but Ohio is fighting a lawsuit right now to preserve its approach.

Such errors are bound to happen since 80 percent of Ohio’s polling stations cover multiple precincts. In 2008, Ohio elections officials discarded 14,000 provisional ballots for this very reason. That number accounted for one third of the total rejected provisional ballots that year.

In June, a group of labor organizations and advocacy groups sued Ohio to block enforcement of this requirement, arguing it could disenfranchise thousands of voters.

Ohio officials have argued the law is justified by the state’s interest in “running elections fairly and efficiently.”

“The argument is sometimes made that if states are required to count these ballots, more people would deliberately go and vote in the wrong precinct,” said Wendy R. Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.

During oral arguments before a federal judge earlier this year, a lawyer for Ohio hinted at such a scenario when he challenged the strength of the plaintiffs’ evidence. “Something else is going on that may not be poll-worker error,” he said, as noted in a footnote to the judge’s ruling.

In August, a federal judge ruled against Ohio’s approach. The state’s interest in fair and efficient elections, wrote U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley for the Southern District of Ohio, “falls short of what is required to justify its inevitable disenfranchisement of thousands of qualified voters in the November 2012 election.”

Ohio has appealed the decision, arguing that the rule helps with “counting only valid, legal ballots, in running a smooth election, and in minimizing post-election litigation.” Allowing such provisional ballots to count, the state further argued, would make it “more difficult for elections officials to monitor and keep up with the voting process.”

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in the case early last week and is expected to issue a decision soon.

Ohio tried to shorten its early voting period—until a federal court ruled otherwise.

Ohio used to permit in-person early voting for registered voters in the three days prior to Election Day. (More than 30 other states have similar early voting options, mostly for those who can’t make it on Election Day.) But last year, the Ohio General Assembly limited the window. Early voting, which began Oct. 2, was scheduled to end at 6 p.m. the Friday before Election Day. Members of the military and overseas voters were exempt from the narrowed time frame.

Democrats have been proponents of early voting: An estimated 93,000 Ohioans voted early in 2008. A subsequent University of Akron study concluded that early voters were “more likely to be strong Democrats than election-day voters”—including women, older voters and lower-income individuals.

In defending the law, Ohio elections officials argued that administering early voting the weekend before Election Day for all registered voters would interfere with counties’ Election Day preparation, and that military voters have a unique need for being exempt.

In July, Obama for America, the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party asked a federal court to block the new rule, arguing that “tens of thousands of citizens who would have otherwise exercised their right to vote during this time period, including Plaintiffs’ members and supporters, may not be able to participate in future elections at all.”

In August, U.S. District Judge Peter C. Economus in Ohio agreed to block the law, writing that creating two separate early voting deadlines would place more value on one person’s vote over another’s. On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed this decision. County elections officials, as in 2008, will still have discretion over whether to open up early voting to all.

Iowa has hired a criminal agent to investigate voter fraud allegations.

In July, the Associated Press reported that Iowa signed a two-year $280,000 contract with an investigator from the state Division of Criminal Investigation to handle suspected cases of voter fraud. The agent’s duties, according to the AP, are “subpoenaing voting records, checking their citizenship status, and interviewing suspects as he builds cases.”

Iowa’s Secretary of State Matt Schultz has identified more than 1,000 names of potential non-citizens to investigate. (Schultz has not responded to requests for comment.)

The first few cases haven’t exactly revealed massive fraud: Two Canadian citizens arrested and charged with felony election misconduct for voting in 2010 and 2011 said they mistakenly believed they could vote in non-presidential elections as legal residents. A third person arrested was a Mexico native whose U.S. citizenship was challenged by the state.

As we’ve noted before, studies show that voter fraud is actually quite rare.

Other measures taken by Schultz’s office— such as allowing anonymous voter fraud online complaints and pursuing non-citizen purging—has prompted legal action from the ACLU.

Texas has notified (living) voters that they are “potentially deceased.”

Last year, the Texas Legislature passed a bill to ensure dead people were kept off its voter rolls. States have long been required to maintain clean voter rolls, so such updating isn’t new.

But Texas went further, giving the Secretary of State authority to conduct voter roll purges using relatively loose criteria like shared names and birthdates.

The result is that live voters have received notice that if they don’t respond within 30 days, they’re assumed dead and will be removed from the voter rolls.

The state’s largest voting district, Harris County, has sent such letters to about 4,000 “potentially deceased” voters.

“Several hundred responded that said, ‘Yeah, I’m still alive,'” said Fred King, communications manager for the Harris County Voter Registrar and Tax Office.

Election experts say that’s not surprising. “The problem is that there is a much higher incidence of sharing names and birthdates than people realize,” said David Becker, director of election initiatives at the Pew Center on the States.

After a lawsuit from four quite live voters, Texas agreed last week to roll back the purge. “Potentially deceased” voters will still be flagged, but will only be removed from the rolls if there’s a hard match. (Secretary of State Hope Andrade has said that’s just a technical change.)

The purge had also been criticized for being started just months before the election. The new law mandating the controversial letters took effect a year ago in September 2011. Texas didn’t start the purge until just this June.

“Most states recognize it’s good policy to do this throughout the year rather than right before an election,” says Becker of the Pew Center on the States.

So what explains Texas’ decision to wait?

“We wanted to run the process with enough time between elections,” Texas Secretary of State spokesman Richard Parsons told ProPublica. “Unfortunately repeated election delays, shifting deadlines and uncertainty all caused by ongoing redistricting litigation did not allow for this process to move forward any sooner.”

Photo credit: AP/J. Pat Carter, File