As we mentioned yesterday, we're currently attending the 2008 National Convention of the American Constitution Society. For those of you not familiar with ACS, here's a short description:

The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS) is one of the nation's leading progressive legal organizations. Founded in 2001, ACS is a rapidly growing network of lawyers, law students, scholars, judges, policymakers and other concerned individuals. Our mission is to ensure that fundamental principles of human dignity, individual rights and liberties, genuine equality, and access to justice enjoy their rightful, central place in American law.

The energy level and enthusiasm are high among conference attendees, with the sense that their star is on the rise. After eight long years in the executive branch wilderness, the left is poised to retake the White House, through the unstoppable campaign of Barack Obama. (Like the Federalist Society on the right, ACS is a non-partisan, non-profit educational organization. As such, it does not endorse presidential candidates. But as with the Fed Soc, it's clear where its members' political sympathies generally reside.)

Speaking of politics, this morning there was a fantastic plenary panel on the presidential selection process, election law, and related topics. If you're a political junkie, check out our write-up of the discussion, after the jump.

Washingtonian magazine has a fun little piece on lawyers profiting from congressmen going after one another.

If you're interested in the intersection of law and politics, and we know many of you are, you'll enjoy this story. Here's how it starts:

Of all the angles played by Washington law firms, few can bring as much joy as having clients who aren’t playing with their own money.

Take the battle between two congressmen, John Boehner of Ohio and Jim McDermott of Washington: In a near-decadelong fight over McDermott’s leak of the contents of privileged and illegally taped conversations involving Boehner, the two ran up legal bills of about $1.6 million.

So who ended up covering that seven-figure legal bill? Find out, after the jump.

The Supreme Court once again wades into the choppy waters of election law. Yeah, you know you love it.

From SCOTUSblog:

The Supreme Court, voting 6-3, on Monday rejected a constitutional challenge to Indiana’s law requiring voters to show a photo ID before they may cast a ballot. Three Justices said the evidence offered against the requirement in Indiana did not support a challenge to the law as written — that is, a “facial” challenge – and three others said the law only imposed a minimal and justified burden on voters. Three Justices dissented.

The decision, in the case of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (07-21) and a companion case, was the only ruling of the day. The Court also issued new orders, but granted review of no new cases....

Here is Lyle Denniston's take:

The voter ID ruling may turn out to be a significant victory for Republicans at election time, since the requirement for proof of identification is likely to fall most heavily on voters long assumed to be identified with the Democrats — particularly, minority and poor voters.

(But not those six-figure-earning, Ivy-League-educated Obama types, of course. They have multiple forms of ID, including passports, which they use for ecotourism visits to Costa Rica.)

Later today -- there's nothing up now except a link to the opinion -- check out Election Law Blog, for the analysis of election-law guru Rick Hasen.

Update: Rick Hasen's write-up appears here. Professor Hasen predicts:

It will encourage further litigation, because it relegates challenges to laws imposing onerous burdens on a small group of voters to "as applied" challenges, but those challenges will be difficult to win. The lack of a majority opinion, moreover, injects some uncertainty into the appropriate standard for reviewing other challenges to onerous election laws.

Breaking News: Supreme Court Upholds Voter ID Law [Election Law Blog]
Court rejects voter ID challenge; no new grants [SCOTUSblog]

The Democratic National Committee filed a lawsuit today against the Federal Election Commission. They want a federal judge to launch an investigation into Senator John McCain's campaign spending.

The DNC had filed a complaint with the FEC in February, but it has not been acted on yet. Maybe because the FEC is down to just two commissioners, instead of the full six, due to the President and the Democratic Senate not being able to play nice and agree on new nominees. From the New York Times:

A lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission, to be filed Monday in U.S. District Court, questions the agency's ability to enforce the law and review McCain's decision to opt out of the system. The Republican presidential candidate, who had been entitled to $5.8 million in federal funds for the primary campaign, decided earlier this year to give up that money so he could avoid strict spending limits between now and the GOP's national convention in September.

During a conference call with reporters Sunday, DNC officials said the FEC is unable to act because four of its six seats are vacant. They want a judge to either order the FEC to begin an immediate review, or allow the Democratic Party to file a lawsuit against McCain's campaign challenging his decision.

The Republican Committee calls the suit nonsense, of course. The RNC spokesman says that the "trial-lawyer Democrats' idea of campaigning for president is to hire lawyers and file frivolous lawsuits." Why you gotta hate on trial lawyers, RNC?

Talking Points Memo goes into the history of McCain's election spending here:

It is a serious issue. As the [Washington] Post reports, "Knowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison."

The fun of the general election begins. Which lucky federal judge will get stuck with this case?

Democrats: McCain Financing Questionable [New York Times via Daily Kos]
McCain's FEC Problem [Talking Points Memo]

* Top candidates turn to trial lawyers for support. [Washington Post]

* More recusal requests expected in WV Supreme Court. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Former NFL player's wife files malpractice suit over surgery. [ESPN]

* Suffrage suffers in Mexico. [MSNBC]

* How to count primary delegates (and an explanation of the "superdelegates"). [New York Times; New York Times]

* "It's just not realistic" to present major new initiatives, but the SOTU will still be on every channel tonight. White House speechwriters are not on strike. [CNN]

* Super-litigator Tom Barr of Cravath, RIP. [New York Times (death notice); WSJ Law Blog]

If you're thinking of moving from private practice to government, you should be prepared to take a hit in perks as well as pay. Sure, your hours will be better -- just avoid the S.D.N.Y. -- and you might even get a free flu shot. But you won't have the fancy offices, the swanky lunches, or round-the-clock support staff. Sometimes you'll have to make your own photocopies.

It is not, however, all doom and gloom. In the past, Department of Justice employees got to enjoy four-dollar meatballs (plus $13,000 in brownies). And now we hear that for at least one DOJ diva, work was a day at the beach -- quite literally.

From Al Kamen of the Washington Post:

[T]he acting deputy director of the [voting rights] section, Susana Lorenzo-Giguere, has been accused of collecting a $64 per diem, including on weekends and the Fourth of July, while spending half of June and most of July and August with her husband and kids at their beach house on Cape Cod.

The allegation, made to the department inspector general apparently by someone linked to the Boston regional office, was that Lorenzo-Giguere made "multiple" government-paid trips to the Cape and that she improperly said that "her presence on Cape Cod was necessary pending litigation in Boston," which was in the courts over the summer....

The complaint also alleged that Lorenzo-Giguere "spent little time in Boston" this summer and did little work on the case. Also, what supervision and oversight she provided was done by phone to Boston while she "remained on the beach," and she would have been able to do this from her office in Washington.

C'mon, folks -- cut Susana some slack. Her kids needed her; building sandcastles is no easy task. And she probably looks great in a swimsuit, too.

More about Ms. Lorenzo-Giguere, after the jump.

Ed. notes: First, B. Clerker is unavailable this morning, so we're doing Morning Docket ourselves. Second, by the time you read this, we'll be attending this event. But we've arranged for previously written posts (like this one) to be published in our absence.

* John Edwards tries to put a noble spin on the financial desperation of his flailing campaign. Stick a fork in him; he's done. [WP; NYT]

* Jena One released on bail. [AP]

* Fourteen "high-value" terrorism suspects will be allowed to request lawyers. KSM will use his to sue Teleflex. [WP]

* In Pakistan, the Supreme Court gets involved in elections too. From the gallery: "Go, Musharraf, go!" [AP via WP]

* Set your TiVo, judicial groupies: Justice Thomas will be on 60 Minutes this Sunday. Thankfully, his interview -- in which he's rumored to call Anita Hill "a nappy-headed ho" -- doesn''t conflict with the season premiere of Desperate Housewives. [WSJ Law Blog]

Another day, another controversy involving New Yorker scribe Jeffrey Toobin and his eagerly anticipated book, The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court (to be published on September 18).

Yesterday we wrote about Toobin weighing in on who deserved the blame for Harriet Miers. Today we bring you a new drama (first noted earlier this week by Jeff Dufour and Patrick Gavin, over at Yeas & Nays).

We begin with a juicy excerpt from Toobin's book, concerning Justice Souter's reaction to Bush v. Gore:

David Souter alone was shattered. He was, fundamentally, a very different person from his colleagues. It wasn’t just that they had immediate families; their lives off the bench were entirely unlike his. They went to parties and conferences; they gave speeches; they mingled in Washington, where cynicism about everything, including the work of the Supreme Court, was universal.

More discussion, including JT's juicy revelation about Justice Souter, after the jump.

Here are some recent, noteworthy moves within the D.C. legal community:

Inside the Administration:

* Conservative legal superstar Jennifer Brosnahan has left the White House Counsel's office, where she was one of the more senior associate counsels, to become the new deputy general counsel at the Department of Transportation.

From government to private practice:

* As previously reported by Ken Vogel of The Politico, Michael Toner has left the Federal Election Commission, to build an election law practice at Bryan Cave (which, by the way, recently raised associate salaries).

Within the Fourth Estate:

* One of the most knowledgeable legal scribes around, Benjamin Wittes, is leaving the Washington Post, after some nine years at the venerable paper.

(Wittes, the author of Confirmation Wars (previously praised here), is currently on book leave from the Post. He's working on another book about the federal courts.)

FEC Revolving Door Swings Faster [The Politico]

(We're filling in today for Stella Q, who has more pressing -- and billable -- matters to attend to.)

* Super-needy partners are the worst to work for. We knew of one partner who would summon an associate from another floor to retrieve a document from her printer and bring it in to her -- because she couldn't be bothered to stand up, walk outside to her secretary's station, and get it herself. (This was after hours, and her secretary was gone.) [New York Times]

* Barack Obama draws on Tribe-al support -- from Laurence Tribe, that is, and the Harvard Law School mafia. We still feel bad for poor, betrayed Hillary. [New York Observer]

* While we're on the subject of '08, check it out: election lawyers are in demand. Who says popular specialties have to be boring? [Politico]

* ATL Public Service Announcement: If you didn't file your 2003 tax return, and are owed a refund, you need to act fast -- or kiss that money good-bye. [TaxProf Blog]

* Brokeback Lawfirm continues to get play on the other side of the pond. [TheLawyer.com]

* District Court can dismiss for forum non conveniens without first determining that it has personal jurisdiction. [U.S. Supreme Court (PDF)]

* No standing in Colorado Elections Clause case. [U.S. Supreme Court (PDF)]

* Supreme Court denies Ebbers appeal without comment. [CNN]

* Mo Money, Mo Lawsuits: Diddy sued for alleged assault at party. [AP via Yahoo!]

* Democrats likely to officially declare victory today in the Senate; Allen "has no intention of dragging this out." [CNN; Election Law Blog]

* Thank you sir may I have another... .life sentence; Malvo gets life in Maryland. [CNN; Washington Post; Baltimore Sun]

* Another one bites the KCl in Texas. [CourtTV]

* KFed wants the kids, yo. I still say DFACS should take 'em. [AP via FindLaw]

* California sex offender law found temporarily blocked by judge one day after being approved on the ballot by voters. [AP via FindLaw]

* Democrats take back the House. [CNN]

* And maybe the Senate. [CNN]

* Just what we need in Washington: more lawyers. [WSJ Law Blog; WSJ Law Blog]

* It still might be possible to have an abortion in South Dakota after all. [AP via Yahoo! News]

* But partial-birth intact-dilation-and-evacuation abortions could be in trouble, depending upon what the Supreme Court rules. [Associated Press]

* Show me the stem cells. [CNN]

* What's an election these days without the lawyers getting involved? [WHSV (Harrisonburg, VA)]

* One clear winner last night: judicial independence. [How Appealing (linkwrap)]

An ATL Public Service Announcement: Today is Election Day. Don't forget to vote!

(That little PSA entitles us to, like, three posts of scurrilous gossip with no redeeming social value.)

The Democrats are expected take control of the House of Representatives in today's midterm elections. A takeover of the Senate is not out of the question. And after today, everyone's attention will turn to 2008 -- and the next presidential election. (Senatrix Hillary Rodham Clinton, after trouncing John Spencer, will no longer be able to turn away presidential speculation by saying she's just "focused on the Senate.")

If current political trends hold, 2008 could represent the Democrats' best shot at retaking the White House in a long, long time. And with the White House, of course, comes the power to fill numerous high-powered legal posts.

More of our coverage of lawyers in government has focused on conservatives. This is to be expected, since Republicans are in power right now. But to balance out our coverage, and because the Dems are ascendant right now, we'd like to pose this question to you:

Which leading lawyers would assume positions of power in a Democratic administration?

Yes, it's a rather broad request. Here are examples of specific questions we'd welcome your thoughts on:

1. Who would be a likely Supreme Court nominee (or nominees) if a Democrat were president?

2. Who would be strong candidates for Attorney General in a Democratic administration?

3. Are any lawyers viable contenders for other Cabinet posts (e.g., Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense)?

4. Who would be strong contenders for other top positions: White House Counsel, Solicitor General, head of the Office of Legal Counsel, etc.?

These are just examples. Feel free to speculate about other posts as well, or offer general observations on how the legal landscape might look if the Democrats were in power.

We're not quite sure what we'll do with the tips we receive from you. Maybe we'll report them in a series of posts, or hold some ATL reader polls. It will depend upon what the quantity and quality of your submissions.

Please send us your responses by email (subject line: Democratic Dream Team). Please include as much information and reasoning as possible in support of your "nominations" -- the more "inside baseball," the better.

And feel free to offer alternative scenarios. E.g., "In a Clinton administration, X would be a lock for Attorney General; but in an Obama administration, Y would get the job." Since this is an exercise in speculation, go ahead and spin out all kinds of crazy hypotheticals.

We can't wait to read your responses. Thanks!

Polls Open Around the Nation in Midterm Elections [Washington Post]
For Democrats, Even a Gain May Feel Like a Failure [New York Times]

* Diebold with a vengeance. [MSNBC]

* SLAPP me baby one more time. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Snoops, he did it again. [CNN]

* I smell a red tree vole. [AP via How Appealing]

* Maybe we should get some folks from the Carter Center involved. [CBS News]

* I didn’t realize that it has been at least four years since people have been writing for nothing but personal satisfaction. Well, Happy Birthday, Legal Reader! [Legal Reader]

* I haven’t made up my mind regarding voter irrationality, but I know this is why I hate politics (and why those swayed to vote by Rock the Vote are perhaps the only ones who really should stay home tomorrow). [Cato Unbound via Marginal Revolution]

* Who saw Borat this weekend? You’d think that everyone would be in on the joke by now, but apparently not. A human rights group is suing Sacha Baron Cohen himself, and a woman says she got fired because of his antics. Let’s hope this guy doesn’t sue. [USA Today: On Deadline]

* Another day, another political/religious sex scandal offender. Unfortunately, being a hypocrite isn’t illegal, but what slogan would you want to see on his t-shirt anyway? [AP via Herald Tribune]

* You KNOW you were thinking of "White Castle" as a substitute building name. [WSJ Law Blog; DealBreaker]

* Lawbeat is a new blog that "watches the journalists who watch the law." Because, you know, not every legal news outlet can be as scrupulous as ATL. [Lawbeat via How Appealing]

* My “authentic self” is that of a party-whore with a Scarlett Johansson rack. But I am forced to “cover” the girls (figuratively and literally) in the workplace, and last night, Partner X made me stay at work until the wee hours -- when he knew my sort should be out gallivanting in the Meatpacking District. Were my civil rights assaulted? [Black Feminism]

* Greatest Donatella Versace impersonator ever, Maya Rudolph, and director Paul Anderson are suing over bedbugs infesting their Soho loft. And who knew that Maya Rudolph’s baby daddy is the dude who once dated Fiona Apple? [Associated Press via NYLawyer.com]

* In preparation for Election Day, HBO just premiered “Hacking Democracy,” about the fallibility of voting machines. We didn’t catch this, but we’re hoping they will also investigate the effect of having incompetent senior citizens, however plucky, running many of the polling locations and voter registration stands. [Volokh Conspiracy]

* Possible settlement in the Ohio voter ID case. [Dispatch]

* "'Not cool' is not a legal argument." [WSJ Law Blog]

* Close polling in some marriage ballot measures. [Wash Times via How Appealing]

* "U.S. privacy protections rank among the worst in the democratic world, a London-based privacy organization said Wednesday." [MSNBC]

* Ann Coulter is accused of voter fraud, in violation of both Florida law and the Code of Irony. [CNN]

Fantasy football tips, after the jump.

* "Colombian Supreme Court: grabbing a woman's behind is a crime." [Herald-Tribune via How Appealing]

* One week until elections -- there must be some litigation somewhere. [Wall Street Journal via [How Appealing]

* Justice O'Connor spoke in Utah this week, and she and Justice Breyer shed some politico-rhetoric in Washington. [CNN]

(For related links, see yesterday's MD.)

* A second plea bargain has been reached in the Iraqi civilian murder case. [MSNBC]

* For you trusts-and-estates buffs, check out Kenneth Lay's will. Notice he leaves much of his assets in the "Ken Lay Trust," which seems oxymoronic. [Slate]

We realize we're late on this, since the news broke on Friday. But at the time, we thought Purcell v. Gonzalez was just a run-of-the-mill Supreme Court ruling. We didn't realize it featured delicious benchslaps of the Ninth Circuit, the lower court whose decision was vacated.

The state of Arizona adopted a rule for next month's elections requiring most voters to show photo identification before casting their ballots. Such rules, adopted by other states as well, are generally supported by Republicans -- who view them as helping to cut down on voter fraud -- and opposed by Democrats -- who believe they may deter poor, elderly, disabled or minority voters from voting.

A legal challenge to the picture ID rule was mounted in Arizona. Some background about the case, from the L.A. Times:

In May, the American Civil Liberties Union, the League of Women Voters and several other civil rights groups sued to block the voter identification rule from being enforced Nov. 7. They called the rule a "21st century poll tax" because it could force some poor voters to purchase photo ID cards....

A federal judge refused to block the law from taking effect, but on Oct. 5, a two-judge panel of the 9th Circuit issued an order saying the law could not be enforced for the upcoming election. The appeals court did not explain its ruling.

Arizona's attorney general asked the Supreme Court to intervene. And on Friday afternoon, the high court issued a six-page opinion that set aside the 9th Circuit's order. It noted that the 9th Circuit's "bare order" did not give a good reason for blocking the law from taking effect.

That's a charitable description of the Supreme Court's treatment of the Ninth Circuit. Here's an excerpt from the opinion itself:

On October 5, after receiving lengthy written responses from the State and the county officials but without oral argument, the panel issued a four-sentence order enjoining Arizona from enforcing Proposition 200’s provisions.... The Court of Appeals offered no explanation or justification for its order. Four days later, the court denied a motion for reconsideration. The order denying the motion likewise gave no rationale for the court’s decision.

Translation: "Despite receiving oodles and oodles of briefing from state and county officials, the Ninth Circuit stopped Arizona from enforcing its rule -- without even bothering to give the state its day in court. Then, when asked to rethink their decision, those Ninth Circuit morons just said 'NO' -- again without bothering to explain themselves."

The discussion continues, after the jump.