A few months ago, we reported on the saga of Mark Hardman. He was an attorney for the commonwealth in Portsmouth, VA. But he was fired after only five months on the job. He claims that his termination stemmed from his decision to run for public office, against his boss. Back in March, we noted:

[Hardman was fired] most likely because Hardman decided that he should be the boss, after only five months on the job:

“A 27-year-old prosecutor in Portsmouth said he was fired because he plans to challenge incumbent Harvey Bryant for Virginia Beach commonwealth’s attorney.”

Incumbent Harvey Bryant denies the charges.

Hardman’s campaign continues, but it seems that he continues his fight at great personal cost. The Virginian-Pilot reports some difficult circumstances for Mr. Hardman:

The challenger in the race for commonwealth’s attorney hasn’t had a fixed address in the city since June 1 and last month filed for unemployment benefits in Newport News….

“I wasn’t prepared, financially, to lose my job at that point in the election cycle,” he said. “It had an impact on my living situation, and I continued to… take all steps that were necessary to maintain my residency in Virginia Beach.”

Without a job, Hardman said he was unable to sign a new lease in June, and he couldn’t afford the summer rent for his home on 75th Street. That address was the only one on file for Hardman’s residence as of Wednesday at the Beach general registrar’s office.

Hardman said filing for unemployment benefits in Newport News shouldn’t have any effect on his residency. He said he has used his mother’s house as a billing address for about 10 years.

That is the kind of situation that makes standing on the breadline so terrifying.

After the jump, Mark Hardman responds to these reports.

Now that campaign season is over, it’s time for the defamation season! Scads of down-ticket candidates have brought lawsuits against their opponents for slanderous advertising during their campaigns.

I guess the presidential election wasn’t close enough for lawyers to make any money off of it.

According to the National Law Journal, even the ACLU sees limited value in bringing these post election actions:

But unless the line of truth is clearly crossed, First Amendment advocates note, negative campaign ads will continue to roll.

“Democracies are messy,” said Kary Moss, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan. “And the reality is that the First Amendment does provide wide latitude for candidates to make their case to the people.”

First A-what? But this is America! You can’t say that your opponent is “soft on sexual predators” in America.

The highest profile lawsuits after the jump.

The National Law Journal reports on the many, many lawyers who busted their tail (on both sides) making America a barely functional democracy:

In Ohio, New Hampshire and Virginia, lawyers scrambled to file court documents in election-related lawsuits. But in most states, lawyers were working to prevent litigation by fielding calls at centers housed at area law firm offices or traveling to polling locations to address voter concerns. Some states had unique issues, such as improper signage in Florida, missing absentee ballots in California and a shortage of interpreters for Asian-American voters in New York’s Chinatown.

Thanks to all who volunteered their time.

Nonetheless, a plethora of shenanigans ensued:

Jon Greenbaum, director of the Voting Rights Project, said the election did not go smoothly in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan and New Jersey. … The bottom line, according to Greenbaum: “The system is not designed to deal with a high turnout election and we’re seeing the effects of a lack of planning and resources.”

Recount!

Malfunctioning Machines, Ballot Glitches, Election-Law Litigation — and a Busy Day for Lawyers [Law.com]

Earlier: Election Shenanigans Watch: VA and (Sadly) Florida

A few hours before the polls close, Virginia continues to be a disaster of disenfranchisement.

Voting machine breakdowns at dozens of sites, affecting voters in all parts of the state, suggest that Virginia election officials were woefully unprepared for the massive turnout that everybody predicted. Right now, Election Protection lawyers are concerned that multiple precincts in Virginia will run out of emergency back-up paper ballots.

Lawyers have asked the state to print more paper ballots because of the shortage. But according to Jon Greenbaum, director of the Voting Rights Project of the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights, the State Board of Elections has effectively said “let’s wait until the [paper ballots] actually run out, and we’ll deal with it then.”

Way to stay ahead of the curve.

The new tactic for voter suppression is apparently to tell people still waiting in line that “due to the unprecedented turnout, voting has been extended to Wednesday.”

Rock the Vote is reporting that students in Virginia are being targeted with text messages saying “due to the long lines, Obama voters are asked to vote on Wednesday. Thank you for your cooperation.”

More line issues after the jump.

The TV guys are still focused on Florida and Ohio. Always fighting the last war. So far, things are generally holding up well in those states.

The early election craziness for 2008 seems to be in Virginia and Pennsylvania. We documented some of the problems in VA earlier today, but many of the same problems are happening in Pennsylvania.

In PA, voting machines are breaking down — apparently these things are made of out of the same stuff they use for the space shuttle — and people are voting by paper ballots. PA does have a statewide mandate for back-up paper ballots.

But once again, voters are being told that their paper ballot, which they are using because of a machine breakdown, will be counted as provisional instead of regular.

Counting those ballots as provisional is a violation of state election law. As we understand it, all paper ballots should be counted as regular ballots if voters are using them because of a machine breakdown.

Additional PA problems, and some surprising news coming out of New Jersey, after the jump.

Earlier this month, an ATL / Lateral Link survey found that 86% of you were talking about politics in the workplace. And 18% of you reported that a fellow associate had tried to convince you to vote for their favorite candidate.

But are politics just seeping into your workplace, or will you be taking your profession to the polls? As the Obama campaign recruits lawyers to join the world’s largest law firm next week and the McCain campaign recruits its own Legal Response Team, how are you and your firms planning to spend the day?

Will you be policing the polls for pro bono — or billable — credit?

Update: This survey is now closed. Click here for the results.

—
Justin Bernold is a Director at Lateral Link, the sponsor of this Associate Life Survey.

My new colleague over at Dealbreaker has written a somewhat modest proposal. John Carney proposes creating an auction market for Electoral College votes, so that states which are traditionally overlooked during presidential elections (like New York) can recoup some political relevance in the free market.

Among general concerns about the fundamental nature of democracy, I’m pretty sure Carney’s elegant proposal is illegal, unconstitutional, and could possibly lead to the creation of subatomic black holes that could end life on earth.

But I’m always up for a spirited legal debate. If anyone disagrees with my reading of the 12th Amendment, please feel free.

Still, many people (who do not live in Ohio or Florida) believe that the EC needs some serious tweaking. But few people agree on how to do it.

So … write your own amendment. Is a straight popular vote really the way to go, or does that disproportionally represent populous coastal states? If you like Carney’s suggestion, how can he make it work constitutionally?

You can’t change the nature of the democratic process without talking to the lawyers.

Could We Have A Market For Electoral College Votes? [Dealbreaker]

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)]