For over fifty years, the tiny New Hampshire village of Dixville Notch has been the source of Election Day's first official result, and this year was no different.

For the first time in Dixville Notch history, all 10 of the township's registered voters, were split down the middle in their choice for America's next president.

"It's a little exiliharating, a little intimidating. It's actually the second time I have had the honour of being the first of the nation. I love the Dixville Notch tradition, I think it's a microcosm... I really hope it's an inspiration for people to see the small town voting process. I hope it shows people the importance of getting out there and making your say heard," said Tillotson.

The tradition of being the first town to vote was given to Hart's Location in 1948 so that railway workers could participate in the polls without taking leave. Dixville Notch started midnight voting 15 years later.

It should be noted that when Dixville Notch picked Obama to win the 2008 election, it was the first time in 40 years the right-leaning village went for a Democrat.

Also, a short hop south of Dixville, in Hart's Location, where the second "first-in-the-nation" ballot casting was being conducted, the results were far more favorable for the incumbent.

There, Obama received 23 votes to Mitt Romney's 9.

Voting Rights Act: The State of Section 5

by Suevon Lee ProPublica, Aug. 30, 2012,

Aug. 30: This post has been updated.

A single provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been playing a key role on the election front this year. Section 5 has blocked photo voter-ID laws, prohibited reduced early-voting periods in parts of Florida and just Tuesday barred new redistricting maps in Texas.

It's the reason South Carolina is in federal court this week to try to convince a three-judge panel its photo voter-ID law will not disenfranchise minorities. It's the reason that Texas went to trial on the same issue last month — and on Thursday, lost.

Not surprisingly, then, Section 5 is increasingly the target of attack by those who say it is outdated, discriminatory against Southern states and unconstitutional.

Under the provision, certain states and localities with a history of anti-minority election practices must obtain federal approval or "preclearance" before making changes to voting laws. In present day, that requirement is burdensome, "needlessly aggressive" and based on outdated coverage criteria, two petitions filed in July with the U.S. Supreme Court argue.

Section 5 applies to nine states — Texas, South Carolina, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Virginia and Alaska — and currently to parts of Florida, California, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota, Michigan and New Hampshire. The original coverage formula looked at whether states imposed unfair devices like literacy tests in November 1964, whether less than 50 percent of the voting-age population was registered to vote as of that date, or if less than 50 percent of eligible voters voted in the November 1964 presidential election. In 1975, the formula expanded to include jurisdictions that provided election materials only in English when members of a language minority made up more than 5 percent of voting-age citizens.

Momentum is building at the highest levels to narrow or even eliminate this provision. In a 2009 majority opinion to a Section 5 challenge from Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 in Texas, U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that preclearance and the coverage formula "raise serious constitutional questions," though the justices didn't settle them at the time. In January, in a separate concurrence to the judgment in the Texas redistricting case, Justice Clarence Thomas stated that Section 5 is unconstitutional (for more on how that case reached the Supreme Court, see our previous explainer).

Continue reading »

With a crowd of Occupy Wall Street protesters gathered on the sidewalk, Newt Gingrich skipped an appearance at his campaign headquarters in New Hampshire, where about 100 volunteers and supporters waited for him on the eve of primary day.

His campaign’s security team pulled the plug on the event after determining that the front and back entrances to the office were unsafe for Mr. Gingrich and his wife to enter, said R.C. Hammond, the campaign spokesman. The disappointed volunteers were scheduled to join Mr. Gingrich later in the evening at The Draft sports bar in Concord, where he planned to watch the college football championship game.

Mr. Hammond, who piped in by speakerphone to a press bus, declined to say why the security team made the decision. The protesters waved signs and chanted, supporting two competing candidates in the Republican primary: Ron Paul and an individual named Vermin Supreme, who wore a rubber boot on his head and danced while speaking through a megaphone.

Later, Gingrich told Fox News' Sean Hannity that "We decided that it wasn't worth risking some kind of big confrontation."

President Obama headed to New Hampshire to promote the next prong of his jobs initiative with voters there. At the very beginning of his speech, he's mic checked by a group of OccupyWallStreet protesters.

Compare and contrast his response to them with Newt Gingrich. Or Karl Rove.

Instead of mocking them or villifying them, he tells them "they're the reason he ran for office in the first place."