Martha Plimpton joined Lawrence O'Donnell on The Last Word Wednesday to tout a new effort designed to push back against the anti-abortion extremists running Congress.

The actress spoke on behalf of the Bill of Reproductive Rights, a new initiative of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which declares the right to make your own choices about your reproductive health and future a "fundamental human right."

The star of Raising Hope noted that 1 in 3 women in America will have an abortion at some time in her life. She added: "The point of all of this is to make people understand that the shame and the isolation that go along with this conversation have no place in what is essentially a perfectly legitimate and constitutionally protected medical procedure."

Plimpton is hardly the only luminary backing the camapign. It's also getting support from Kevin Bacon, Sandra Bernhard, Billy Crudup, Olympia Dukakis, Jenna Fischer, Caroline Kennedy, Lisa Kudrow, Tea Leoni, Audra McDonald, Oliver Platt, Amy Poehler, Kyra Sedgwick, Sarah Silverman, and Meryl Streep.

Here's the full text of the Bill of Reproductive Rights, which can be found at drawtheline.org:

The Bill of Reproductive Rights states:

We the people of the United States hereby assert the following as fundamental human rights that no government may deny, and that our governments at every level must guarantee and safeguard for all.

1. The right to make our own decisions about our reproductive health and future, free from intrusion or coercion by any government, group, or individual.
2. The right to a full range of safe, affordable, and readily accessible reproductive health care—including pregnancy care, preventive services, contraception, abortion, and fertility treatment—and accurate information about all of the above.
3. The right to be free from discrimination in access to reproductive health care or on the basis of our reproductive decisions.

With the election approaching, some corporate CEOS are pulling out all the stops to pressure their employees about what they do in the voting booth.

On The Ed Show Wednesday, Ed counted off the examples:

• Robert Murray of Murray Enterprises in Ohio earlier this summer forced miners to attend a Mitt Romney rally without pay, some miners have charged. The Federal Election Commission is probing the episode. Murray later went on Fox News and made the bizarre claim that President Obama wants to pass legislation that would pay for people's electric bills—provoking laughter even from his host.

• David Siegel, a Florida real-estate mogul who's building the biggest mansion in America, told employees in a company email they should vote for Romney,, adding that he'd lose motivation to work if Obama was re-elected.

• The Koch brothers sent thousands of employees a list of their favored candidates.

• And as Ed reported Monday, Richard Lacks of Lacks Enterprises, a Michigan auto-parts company, told employees in a recent email that they should “vote to improve your standard of living”by opposing Obama.

Of course, as Ed noted, it's hardly surprising these multi-millionaires would favor Romney. He wants to cut their taxes and deregulate their industries.

Robert Reich, an MSNBC contributor and former Labor Secretary, pointed out that taxes were lower on these CEOs in the for much of the 20th century. And he added:

These people seem to have no patriotic sense. I mean they are part of a society. They have some obligations to society. And yet they are saying, I don't want to be taxed, and if I'm taxed then I'm going to take it out on all of you, who have less job security than they've ever had, whose wages continue to drop, and whose homes are now worth 30% less than they were before.

Since last week's court ruling blocking Pennsylvania's voter ID law, the state has appeared to be in no rush to let voters know that the law is no longer in effect for the November election, and that an ID is no longer required. Both Lean Forward and The Rachel Maddow Show (see video above) have reported on the various ways in which the Republican state administration is dragging its heels.

But in terms of reducing confusion, the instructions that the state gives to county election boards are among the most crucial pieces of the puzzle. So what has Pennsylvania told the counties since last week?

The email below, obtained by Lean Forward, was sent by the office of Secretary of State Carol Aichele to county election administrators last Tuesday, the day of the court's ruling. It appears to fall far short of a clear declaration that photo ID is no longer required.

Instead, it tells local election officials they "MUST" (all caps in the original) ask voters for ID, but adds that voters "will not be required to vote by provisional ballot in the event that they do not show proof of identification"—a mixed message that appears to have the potential to cause confusion among county election administrators.

The email informs counties that an updated handout will be provided, but several county election directors that Lean Forward spoke to Tuesday said they were yet to receive the handout.

The court ruled that the ID requirement could remain in effect, but could not apply to this fall's election. The ruling said poll workers could still ask for ID this year, but that voters who lack it can still vote, and can't be made to cast a provisional ballot.

Here's the full email:

Good Afternoon,

Based on the order from Commonwealth Court today, the Department offers the following guidance as you prepare for the November election:

·         The Court’s order effectively provides for another “soft rollout” for the November election.  All voters MUST be asked to show proof of identification, but they will not be required to vote by provisional ballot in the event that they do not show proof of identification.  Please use handouts, as you did in the Primary, to explain Voter ID.  The updated handout will be provided tomorrow.

·         Please note that the “first-time voter” requirements that were in place prior to September 17, 2012 will apply in the November 6 General Election.  Therefore, those voters who are required under the Help America Vote Act and/or the Pennsylvania Election Code to provide identification will still be required to provide identification at the November 6 General Election.

·         The polling place posters that were handed out at the conference (or mailed) should not be posted at polling places, but rather stored for future use, if necessary.

·         If you have already ordered the updated provisional ballot receipts and did not retain old provisional ballot receipt stock, you may implement either of the following 2 strategies:

1.       Redact the 2^nd and 3^rd paragraphs of the new provisional ballot receipt, as shown in the attached example, which is entitled Provisional Ballot Receipt_w.redaction.

2.       Detach the provisional ballot receipt from the bar-coded portion of provisional ballot label and hand out to each voter the attached receipt, which is entitled Provisional Ballot Receipt_OLD TYPE.

·         The new voter registration and absentee ballot applications can still be utilized.  The Court’s order DOES NOT enjoin or otherwise alter the requirements of Act 18 relating to absentee balloting.  The Act 18 proof of identification requirements for absentee voters remain in effect.

A spokesman for the Secretary of State's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment as to whether and when additional guidance would be provided to the counties.

Office of the Ohio Secretary of State

Secretary of State Jon Husted

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted has announced he'll appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court last week's court ruling that restored full early voting rights for all Ohioans. 

“This is an unprecedented intrusion by the federal courts into how states run elections," Husted, a Republican, said in a statement issued Tuesday afternoon, "and because of its impact on all 50 states as to who and how elections will be run in America we are asking the Supreme Court to step in and allow Ohioans to run Ohio elections.

On Friday, a three-judge panel ruled that Ohio's plan to scrap the last three days of early voting before the November 6 election for everyone except military service-members violated the Constitution's equal protection clause. The Obama campaign had challenged the plan in a lawsuit.

Rick Hasen, a prominent election-law expert, wrote Friday that he was "surprised" by the Appeals Court ruling, and that it "may not survive further review ... should Ohio choose to appeal."

A study released Monday by the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights found that in 2008 in Cuyahoga County—Ohio's most populous—black voters used this period at 26 times the rate of white voters. Many African-Americans vote en masse after attending church the Sunday before the election.

A Michigan CEO is giving his employees a little friendly advice: Vote Romney, or you'll end up paying for it.

In a letter to company workers, Richard Lacks, who runs auto parts supplier Lacks Enterprises, advised them to “vote to improve your standard of living” by opposing President Obama.

Obama's healthcare overhaul, Lacks claimed, would lead to higher health insurance costs for the firm. “As employees, you will receive no additional direct benefit other than you will have to pay for it,” he added.

Lacks continued: “The talk of additional tax increases by the administration, if re-elected, will have an additional negative impact on the organization. It is always important to remember the more government takes the less there will be available to spread around to the working people of this company."

The letter was leaked to MILive.com.

On The Ed Show Monday, Ed Schultz filled viewers in on the real kicker: In that same letter, Lacks informed employees they'd be getting their sixth bonus on 3 years. Though a company spokesman told MILive.com that the firm didn't benefit directly from the auto bailout pushed by the Obama administration and opposed by Romney, Ed noted that's not the full story. G.M. and Chrysler are among Lacks's top customers, and without the bailout, they might not exist today. So it's fair to say that Obama's bailout has played a pretty big role in the firm's success these last few years.

Office of the Ohio Secretary of State

A federal judge has ruled that Ohio must restore full early voting hours for all voters—the latest high-profile win for voting-rights supporters.

Judge Joseph Hood of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled (pdf) in support of a lawsuit filed by the Obama campaign, arguing that Ohio was violating the constitution by allowing military service-members, but not civilians, to vote on the last three days before the election. 

After coming to power in 2010, state Republicans scrapped early voting for all but the military, raising an uproar among voting-rights supporters and Democrats. Many African-Americans traditionally vote on the Sunday before the election, after attending church—a ritual known as "souls to the polls." Around 93,000 people are estimated to have used those three days to vote in 2008, when  Obama won the state.

Lean Forward reported last month that the coalition of military groups supporting the law in court was organized by national Republican operatives.

Secretary of State Jon Husted (pictured) gave no indication of whether he planned to appeal, saying in a statement his office is reviewing the decision.

On Tuesday, in another win for voting rights, a Pennsylvania judge blocked a state law requiring voters to present photo ID.

Michael Perez/AP

You've heard a lot lately about how new restrictions on voting could keep a sizable number of legitimate voters from the polls. But with a few exceptions, the story has focused on state officials, lawyers, and court cases. The countless ordinary voters whose rights are threatened haven't received much attention.

That's why we want to hear from you. Do you expect to have trouble voting this year, or have you already encountered problems, thanks to changes to your state's voting system? If so, tell us your story.

Maybe you live in Georgia, Tennessee, or Indiana, and don't have an official photo ID, as required by those states. Maybe you're in Ohio, and you usually vote on the last weekend before the election—an option that's now been scrapped. Maybe you're in Colorado, Florida, or elsewhere and you found out you've been wrongly purged from the rolls. (For a map showing some but not all voting restrictions, go here.) Maybe it's something more mundane—like your local officials moved your polling place this year and it's harder to get to.

Whatever it is, we want to hear about it. Send us an email at this address. Between now and Election Day, we'll post the most compelling stories we get.

Voting is a fundamental constitutional right, that should be made easy for everyone. It's time to put some human faces on the voting story. Help us do that.

IF YOU CONTACT US:

• Be sure to include your phone number, so we can follow up with you.

• If possible, include a photo of yourself that we can use to illustrate your story.

• Include as much detail as possible about your situation.

Tom Mihalek / REUTERS

Barring a reversal, Pennsylvania voters won’t be required to produce a photo ID at the polls next month, thanks to a judge’s ruling this morning. But voting-rights groups say they’re concerned the state may continue with a campaign telling voters they do need ID, potentially causing confusion and keeping some voters from the polls.

“That is the big question: Will the state continue to run advertising  saying that people need ID?” Witold Walczak, a lawyer with the ACLU of Pennsylvania, told Lean Forward. “Because that’s false.”

Judge Robert Simpson ruled Tuesday morning that the state must continue with its “soft rollout” of the voter ID law. That means poll workers can ask voters for ID, but can’t turn them away, or force them to cast provisional ballots, for not producing one.

But the ruling did not address the state’s $5 million advertising campaign telling voters that they’ll need an ID to vote. One TV ad that last month was running across the state says: “To vote in Pennsylvania on Election Day, you need an acceptable photo ID with a valid expiration date,” and tells voters to “show it.”

In a statement released Tuesday afternoon, Secretary of State Carol Aichele said the ad campaign would go on. “We will continue our education and outreach efforts, as directed by the judge in his order, to let Pennsylvanians know the voter ID law is still on track to be fully implemented for future elections, and we urge all registered voters to make sure they have acceptable ID," said Aichele.

Asked for clarification, Aichele spokesman Matthew Keeler told Lean Forward, via email: "We are looking into the media campaign to transition and update information and ads to continue to educate voters and prepare for election day."

And Walczak told Lean Forward he's feeling "cautiously optimistic" after a Tuesday afternoon conversation with state lawyers.

Still, supporters of the law are claiming that changing the campaign would be impractical. “It’s already in the works,” said Steve Miskin, a spokesman for Rep. Mike Turzai, a Republican, told Lean Forward. “How do you just pull it back?”

But voting-rights advocates say if the state doesn’t do so, the result could be widespread confusion, leading some voters to stay away from then polls because they wrongly believe they need ID.

"There is a concern on our side about the possibility of misinformation going out," David Gersch, a lawyer for civil-rights groups challenging the law, told reporters on a conference call. If there’s confusion about whether an ID is needed, he added, “folks may just stay home.” 

Gersch and other voting-rights lawyers on the case said they might pursue further legal action if the state won’t assure them it’ll change the ad campaign, though they’re hopeful that won’t be necessary.

“We’d like to think that at the end of the day, they’re not going to be interested in having ads and educational materials out there that are incorrect,” Gersch said.

In one sign that the state is tweaking its campaign, before Tuesday's ruling the Pennsylvania elections website read: “Voters are required to show an acceptable photo ID before casting their ballot." It now says:"Voters will be asked, but not required, to show an acceptable photo ID on Election Day."

Will you, or will someone you know, be affected by voter ID laws this November? Email us at LeanForwardEditors@msnbc.com with your story.

Michael Perez / AP

In a decision being cheered by voting-rights advocates, a judge has issued a preliminary injunction against Pennsylvania's controversial voter ID law.

Judge Robert Simpson ruled that poll workers can ask voters for ID, but they cannot turn away voters who do not have one. Nor can such voters be forced to cast a provisional ballot.

The ruling did not strike down the law, it merely ensured that the law won't be in effect for this fall's election.

“We are very glad voters will not be turned away from the polls this November if they do not have an ID,” said Judith Browne Dianis of the Advancement Project, which helped bring the case, in a statement.

Wendy Weiser of the Brennan Center for Justice was more effusive. “Today’s decision is a clear victory for Pennsylvania voters and the cause of voting rights across the country," Weiser said in a statement.

State election officials had last week made modifications to the law in an effort to convince the judge not to block it. But Simpson wrote: “I cannot conclude the proposed changes cure the deficiency in liberal access [to ID's] identified by the Supreme Court.”

But despite the victory, some concerns remain. Voting-rights advocates expressed dissatisfaction that poll workers will still be allowed to ask for ID, potentially causing confusion. “This injunction serves as a mere Band-Aid for law’s inherent problems, not an effective remedy,” said Penda Hair of the Advancement Project.

And some said the state's $5 million ad campaign informing voters that they'll need ID has already sown confusion. "It's our hope that the state will revise its public education," Benjamin Geffen, a lawyer with the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, another group that helped bring the case, told Lean Forward.

Some Republican supporters of the law claimed a partial victory, citing the fact that, as it stands, the law will be in effect for future elections. "It's still a victory for election integrity, because ultimately every voter will need to have a photo ID," Steve Miskin, a spokesman for State Rep. Mike Turzai, told Lean Forward. Turzai provoked anger among voting rights supporters when he told a group of fellow Republicans in June that the law would "allow" Mitt Romney to win Pennsylvania this fall.

The legal fight may still not be over. The judge's ruling can be appealed to the state's Supreme Court.

Tom Mihalek / REUTERS

Voting-rights groups are suing to block Pennsylvania’s controversial voter ID law, and a ruling in the case is expected before Tuesday.

The state’s Republican leadership argues that the law should stand, since getting a state-issued ID isn’t all that difficult. But it’s hard to take that argument seriously after reading testimony given last week by one 84-year-old Pennsylvanian, Nadine Marsh, about the nightmare of incompetent bureaucracy that she was put through as she tried to get one.

And ask yourself: How many other Pennsylvania voters, less determined than Marsh, will end up getting discouraged and giving up?.

Here's Marsh's testimony: 

I was born on March 8th, 1928, in Sewickley, which is in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. I have no photo ID that will allow me to vote on November 6. I have never driven or had a PennDOT photo ID, so I needed a raised, sealed birth certificate, Social Security card and two proofs of residence to get a nondriver PennDOT ID in order to vote. I have been unable to obtain a PennDOT ID because I do not have a birth certificate. And the Department of Health notified me in May by a document dated May 16th, 2012, that they have no record of my birth. Exhibit 12, Page 3, from the first trial. I want to vote, so I have continued to try to get an ID that will allow me to do so in November.

In August, I learned that the Commonwealth would be issuing a new form of ID known as the Department of State, DOS, voter ID and that I could get it without a birth certificate. My granddaughter, Suzanne Smith, knows how to use the Internet, and she researched what documents I needed to get the DOS ID.

Based on her research, she learned that I would need to present two acceptable proofs of residency. Since I live with my daughter, Barb Smith, I do not get any bills that show my address. Neither Suzanne nor I could tell if I had the necessary documents to get a DOS ID. So on August 25th, Suzanne sent an email to the Department of State help line. And we have the Internet address for that. A copy of the August 25 email is attached as Exhibit 1. And I'm just going to characterize here Exhibit 1. It's an email to the help desk where she says that the Web site says that you are asked to present two proofs of residence, such as a utility bill, along with their date of birth and Social Security number. And the question is being asked: What do you mean by "such as"? What is a full list of the kinds of proof of residence documents that we can present? I don't know what "such as" is. That's too vague. And then our DMV is over 20 miles from home, and making numerous trips due to lack of clarity about acceptable proof is burdensome, to say the least. So this is dated August 25. Suzanne stated in the email that she could not find a complete list of acceptable proofs of residency. The closest thing she found was the following: When requesting these IDs, voters will need to affirm that they do not possess any other approved identification for voting purposes. They will be asked to provide two proofs of residence, such as a utility bill, along with their date of birth and Social Security number if the customer has an assigned number. PennDOT will validate the voter registration status with the Department of State while the voter is in the PennDOT office. Upon confirmation of this information, the voter will be issued a voter card before leaving the PennDOT facility. She then asked for a, quote, full list of acceptable types of proof of residency, because the -- "such as" in the above-referenced paragraph was "too vague."

After three days, Suzanne still had not received a reply from DOS. On August 28th, Suzanne sent a second email asking DOS to respond and adding a question about whether I would have to take two trips to DMV. A copy of the August 28th email is attached as Exhibit 2. Two more days passed, and Suzanne still had not gotten a response from DOS. On August 30th, Suzanne sent a third email, forwarding her earlier ones asking for a response. A copy of the August 30 email is attached as Exhibit 3. Later that day on August 30, Suzanne received a response saying that I can fulfill the requirements if I bring a, quote, verification of residence affirmation, end quote, form which was attached, filled out by someone who can say where I live, along with a bank statement. A copy of the August 30 DOS response is attached as Exhibit 4.

I got very sick right after Suzanne received the response, and I was unable to leave the house for a couple of weeks. I felt better -- I'm sorry. I felt better by the weekend of September 15th, so I decided it was time to try again to get my ID. The closest licensing bureau is in Rochester, which is more than 20 miles away from my home and takes about 40 minutes to drive there. See Exhibit 5, MapQuest printout of directions. Because such a trip is difficult for me, we wanted to be sure we went to the bureau on a day that I could get my ID. My granddaughter searched the PennDOT Web site and found that the Rochester office is opened from 8:15 to 4:30 on Mondays. See Exhibit 6, which is a Web site printout of East Rochester PennDOT driver license center. Based on the information, on Monday, September 17th, my daughter Barb, who had a day off from work, drove me the 40 minutes to the East Rochester licensing center. I had all the papers I thought I would need to get the ID. Even though the PennDOT office was open, they told me that the licensing desk is not open on Mondays, so I was unable to obtain a DOS ID. We made the 40-minute drive home without getting an ID.

Since Barb was again off from work the next day, Tuesday, September 20th, she and I made a second trip, yet again driving the 40 minutes to the Rochester DMV. After waiting in line for about 20 minutes, Barb and I worked with a PennDOT clerk, who did not seem to understand about the DOS ID and who had to ask her supervisor many questions. Even though I had the two proof of residency forms the DOS help desk had told Suzanne I needed in their August 30 email, the completed verification of residence affirmation form and my bank statement with the home address on it, PennDOT refused to issue me a DOS ID.

I was told that PennDOT needed to, quote, process the application and that I should go home and "Harrisburg" would notify me when I could come back to get my DOS ID. I was not given a receipt or any other document verifying my application. In addition to the 20-minute wait, I spent an hour working with this lady, and I still did not get a voter ID. The clerk could not tell me what document would be getting in the mail from Harrisburg or when I would receive it. When I expressed concern about how long it would take, the clerk alerted me to the fact that I needed to return with the document before October 9, which she said was the deadline to get voter ID. The drive home took another 40 minutes.

As of this date, September 23, I still have not heard anything from either PennDOT or DOS about getting my ID. As of this date, I have no ID to vote, despite taking two trips to a DMV, and have no idea how or if I will be able to get an ID to vote in November.

Similarly hellish stories can be found here (pdf).

Office of the Ohio Secretary of State

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted

A controversial voter ID law in Pennsylvania. A flawed bid to remove non-citizens from the voting rolls in Florida. The elimination of the last three days of early voting in Ohio.

As if all that wasn’t enough to worry about, voting rights advocates say they’re concerned about yet another development that could disenfranchise legitimate voters—one which has largely flown under the radar, despite its potential to affect the presidential race: A reduction of nearly half a million in the number of Ohio’s registered voters since 2008—seemingly concentrated in populous, Democratic-leaning areas—amid an aggressive effort by the state’s Republican leadership to pare the rolls.

The Advancement Project, a leading voting-rights group, has filed public records requests with Ohio’s counties to look into whether the process used to remove names from the rolls was legal, the group’s co-director, Penda Hair, told Lean Forward. “We are definitely concerned,” she said.

Diana Kasdan, a lawyer with the Brennan Center for Justice, which supports voting rights, said her group, too, is “definitely taking a look at” the issue.

Subodh Chandra, a Democratic civil-rights lawyer based in Cleveland, was blunter. “What seems to be clear is that they’re making an effort to remove as many people from the rolls as possible before the presidential elections,” he said.

The Buckeye State is shaping up once again to be perhaps the single key battleground in the presidential race. But the state’s voting rolls have shrunk from 8.3 million on Election Day 2008 to 7.8 million at the start of September 2012, according to an analysis by the Cleveland Plain-Dealer, based on data from the Secretary of State’s office and the U.S. Census Bureau. That’s a decline of nearly 6 percent at a time when Ohio’s population, like that of most states, appears to be growing slightly. In 2004, President Bush won Ohio, and with it the election, but just 119,000 votes.

In the state’s most populous county, Cuyahoga, which includes Cleveland, the rolls have shrunk by nearly 20 percent, almost twice as large a percentage decline as any other county has seen. Thirty-five percent of Cuyahoga County residents are black or Hispanic, and President Obama won 70 percent of the vote there in 2008.

The reductions come on the heels of a concerted effort by Jon Husted (pictured), Ohio’s Republican Secretary of State, to pare the state’s voting rolls. Husted already has attracted the ire of voting-rights groups and Democrats after at first approving a plan that would have allowed for longer early voting hours in GOP-leaning counties than in Democratic ones (he later backed down), then fighting an effort to restore the last three days of early voting, and firing two Democratic elections officials who stood up to him on the issue. Last month, Husted was scheduled to speak to the Tea Party group True the Vote, which has been widely accused of using intimidating tactics to suppress voting, before pulling out at the last minute. And he recently told a different Tea Party group that he hoped to see new voter ID measures implemented next year.

Federal law requires that states take steps to maintain accurate voting rolls, and even voting-rights groups acknowledge the importance of doing so. Since taking office in 2011, Husted has made cleaning up the rolls “a top priority of his administration,” his office said in a legal filing (pdf) made last week, in response to a lawsuit by True the Vote and another conservative group, aimed at forcing him to conduct a more aggressive purge.

Husted’s office has improved the process by which the state receives information on deceased voters, leading to the removal of 153,000 names from the rolls, according to a spokesman, Matthew McClellan. The office also has worked to eliminate duplicates, which has accounted for “hundreds of thousands” more removals, McClellan said. In addition, it has begun working with the Ohio DMV to improve the accuracy of the information in its database. And it asked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for access to an immigration database which could have been used to pare the rolls on the basis of citizenship, but was denied. (After its own request was denied, Florida instead used a flawed state DMV database to conduct a controversial citizenship-based purge. McClellan said Ohio has not conducted a citizenship-based purge.)

“The rolls in Ohio are in the best shape that they’ve been in for years,” McClellan said.

In Cuyahoga County, many of the roughly 214,000 removals came in the summer of 2011, when the county took off around 100,000 voters who hadn’t voted in several years and hadn’t responded to a 2007 mailing. At that time, the county had discovered it had more people on the rolls than it had citizens of voting age. Another 93,000 were duplicates, Jane Platten, the county’s elections director, told Lean Forward.

Much of the impetus for the removal efforts came from the state, Platten added. “The state’s been real aggressive on making sure counties keep up with that,” she said.

But voting-rights advocates say there’s been little information about the process by which removals have been made across the state, raising concerns that legitimate voters could have been knocked off the rolls, with little time left before the election to find out and fix the problem.

Chandra singled out the removals of dead voters as a particular concern. “Because there’s no transparency, it’s hard to know whether or not they are removing people who are truly dead and should have been removed, or whether they are taking a hatchet-type approach,” he said. “There doesn’t seem to be a great expression of care about not making mistakes.”

“I’m concerned about the reasons for doing it this close to an election, and whether this is a systematic removal that would be prohibited within 90 days,” said Hair, noting that states are banned under federal law from conducting  large-scale purges within 90 days of an election. She added:  “If we find something that we believe is a serious violation that’s affecting a large number of people,” there’s a “strong possibility” the group will file a lawsuit.

McClellan said the state goes through “multiple steps” to ensure that legitimate voters aren’t knocked off. But, perhaps given Husted’s record as a less-than-zealous defender of voting rights, that’s doing little to ease some concerns.

“If the Secretary’s voter purge winds up deciding the election,” said Chandra, “then that will undermine Ohioans and all Americans confidence in our democracy.” 

REUTERS/Asmaa Waguih

Mitt Romney is attacking President Obama for telling 60 Minutes that the recent turmoil in the Middle East amounts to "bumps in the road."

Speaking to ABC News Monday, Romney called Obama's comments "quite revealing," adding:

His indication that developments in the Middle East represent 'bumps in the road' is a very different view than I have. The president—I can’t imagine saying something like the assassination of ambassadors is a bump in the road, when you look at the entire context: The assassination, the Muslim brotherhood president being elected in Egypt, 20,000 people killed in Syria, Iran close to becoming a nuclear nation these are far from being bumps in the road. They represent events that are spinning out of the kind of influence we’d like to have. We’re at the mercy events rather than shaping the events in the Middle East.

In the 60 Minutes interview Sunday, Steve Kroft asked Obama whether the recent events in the Middle East gave him pause about supporting some of the governments that have come to power. Obama replied:

Well, I'd said even at the time that this is going to be a rocky path. The question presumes that somehow we could have stopped this wave of change. I think it was absolutely the right thing for us to do to align ourselves with democracy, universal rights, a notion that people have to be able to participate in their own governance. But I was pretty certain and continue to be pretty certain that there are going to be bumps in the road because, you know, in a lot of these places, the one organizing principle has been Islam. The one part of society that hasn't been controlled completely by the government. There are strains of extremism, and anti-Americanism, and anti-Western sentiment. And, you know, can be tapped into by demagogues. There will probably be some times where we bump up against some of these countries and have strong disagreements, but I do think that over the long term we are more likely to get a Middle East and North Africa that is more peaceful, more prosperous and more aligned with our interests.