[EL] more news 12/6/11

Tue Dec 6 14:44:38 PST 2011

Rick is right, this is hilarious and all completely unnecessary but for  
contribution limits. 

_Campaign Finance Flow  Chart from Mother Jones_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26149)  
Posted on  _December 6, 2011 8:08 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26149) 
 by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)  

_Very  amusing_ 
(http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/campaign-finance-flow-chart) .

When are politicians going to realize that they need to reassert their  
relevance by raising contribution limits?  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 12/6/2011 2:58:58 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:

_“Herman Cain Super PAC  Mulls Money”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26175)  
Posted  on _December 6, 2011 9:24 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26175) 
 by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)   

Politico _reports_ (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/69826.html) . 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26175&title=“Herman%20Cain%20Super%20PAC%20Mulls%20Money”&description=) 

Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10)   | 
Comments Off 

_“Study Finds Voters  Erred Often in Using New Machines”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26172)  
Posted  on _December 6, 2011 9:22 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26172) 
 by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)   

_NYT:_ 
(http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/study-finds-voters-erred-often-in-using-new-machines/)  
As many as 60,000 of the votes cast in New York State elections last year  
were voided because people unintentionally cast their ballots for more than  
one candidate, according to_  a study being released this week_ 
(http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/design_deficiencies_and_lost_votes/) . 
The excess-voting was highest in  predominantly black and Hispanic 
neighborhoods, including two Bronx election  districts where 40 percent of the votes 
for governor were disqualified. 
The study, by the _Brennan Center for Justice_ 
(http://www.brennancenter.org/)  at the  New York University Law School, blamed software used with new 
electronic  optical-scan voting machines as well as ambiguous instructions 
for  disenfranchising tens of thousands of voters. The old mechanical  
lever-operated machines did not allow votes for more than one candidate for  the 
same office.

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26172&title=“Study%20Finds%20Voters%20Erred%20Often%20in%20Using%20New%20Machines
”&description=) 

Posted in _election  administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18)  
| Comments Off 

_“Schurick guilty of  election fraud in robocall case; Former Gov. Ehrlich’
s campaign manager guilty  on all counts”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26169)  
Posted  on _December 6, 2011 9:15 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26169) 
 by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)   

_Baltimore  Sun_ 
(http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/breaking/bs-md-schurick-robocalls-verdict-20111206,0,7659803.story) : “A Baltimore jury said Tuesday 
that Paul Schurick, former Gov. Robert  L. Ehrlich Jr.’s campaign manager, 
was guilty of election fraud for his role  in an Election Day 2010 robocall. 
The jury found Schurick guilty on all four  counts, including election 
fraud and failing to include an Ehrlich campaign  authorization line on the 
calls.” 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26169&title=“
Schurick%20guilty%20of%20election%20fraud%20in%20robocall%20case;%20Former%20Gov.%20Ehrlich’s%20campaign%20manager%20guilty%20on%20all%20counts”
&description=) 

Posted in _chicanery_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12) , _election  
administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18)  | Comments Off 

_“California’s Direct  Democracy Troubles”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26166)  
Posted  on _December 6, 2011 8:48 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26166) 
 by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)   

The Daily Show _takes  on_ 
(http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-december-5-2011/california-s-direct-democracy-troubles)  direct democracy in the 
Golden States.  Takeaway: John Burton  swears like a sailor. 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26166&title=“California’s%20Direct%20Democracy%20Troubles”&description=) 

Posted in _direct democracy_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62) ,  
_election law  "humor"_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=52)  | Comments Off 

_“Citizens United  International”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26163)  
Posted  on _December 6, 2011 8:28 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26163) 
 by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)   

It’s _not as far off_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26137)  as you might  
think.  SCOTUS ponders Friday. 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26163&title=“Citizens%20United%20International”&description=) 

Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) ,  
_Supreme Court_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29)   | Comments Off 

_“LDF and NAACP Release  Report on Confronting Modern Barriers to Voting 
Rights”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26160)  
Posted  on _December 6, 2011 8:26 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26160) 
 by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)   

See_  this press release_ 
(http://naacpldf.org/press-release/ldf-and-naacp-release-report-confronting-modern-barriers-voting-rights)  about a new_  
report_ 
(http://naacpldf.org/files/publications/Defending%20Democracy%2012-5-11.pdf) , “Defending Democracy: Confronting Modern Barriers to Voting Rights  
in America.” 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26160&title=“
LDF%20and%20NAACP%20Release%20Report%20on%20Confronting%20Modern%20Barriers%20to%20Voting%20Rights”&description=) 

Posted in _election  administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18) , 
_The Voting Wars_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60)   | Comments Off 

_Elemendorf: Making  Sense of Section 2 – Part 2 (Injury and Proof)_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26156)  
Posted  on _December 6, 2011 8:16 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26156) 
 by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)   

Here’s Chris Elmendorf’s _second guest post_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26100)  on his  forthcoming piece: 
Enacted by Congress in 1982, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) bans  
electoral structures “which result[]” in members of a class of citizens  
defined by race or color “hav[ing] less opportunity than other members of the 
 electorate to participate in the political process and to elect  
representatives of their choice.”  During congressional debates on the  bill, critics 
asked supporters of the proposed results test to identify the  “core value”
 they meant to protect.  Whether for reasons of strategy or  genuine 
confusion, the proponents essentially dodged this question, saying  only that they 
intended to restore the legal status quo prior to the Supreme  Court’s 
decision in _City  of Mobile v. Bolden_ 
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=446&invol=55) .  (The Bolden plurality wrote that  
the 14th Amendment disallows electoral structures that “dilute” minority  
political power only if the structure was adopted or maintained for  
discriminatory reasons.) 
In the years since 1982, the Supreme Court has struggled to identify  
Section 2’s core value.  An antidiscrimination results test necessarily  
presupposes some benchmark conception of neutrality or fairness against which  an 
allegedly discriminatory result may be measured.  As _my paper_ (http:
//papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1822642)   explains, the Supreme Court’
s cases variously hint at three different  conceptions of the normative 
benchmark for vote dilution claims, i.e., the  entitlement that Section 2 
protects: (1) the opportunity to elect a roughly  proportionate number of ideally 
preferred representatives; (2) the  representational opportunity that the 
minority community would have enjoyed  under a typical scheme of 
single-member districts; and (3) the  representational opportunity that the minority 
community would have had absent  race-biased decisionmaking by conventional 
state actors (or majority-group  voters). 
The third benchmark is in my view the most defensible.  A number of  lower 
courts agree and the law is moving in this direction.  But there is  a 
serious problem with reading Section 2 such that liability depends on proof  of 
intentional discrimination: the framers of the results test were adamantly  
opposed to intent tests.  The legislative history voices several specific  
objections to the Bolden plurality’s approach.  The intent test  “asks the 
wrong question”; it’s “unnecessarily divisive”; and it poses an  “
inordinately difficult burden for plaintiffs in most cases.”  Yet the  legislative 
history also shows that Congress was very much concerned  with impairments of 
minority political opportunity that result from  racial prejudice. 
It’s possible to reconcile the legislative history’s objections to intent  
tests with its tacit endorsement of an intent-sensitive benchmark for what 
is  a discriminatory “result” within the meaning of Section 2.  The trick 
is  to expand the object of the intent test (from the lawmakers who enacted 
the  electoral arrangements at issue, to all public actors and majority-group 
 voters whose biased decisions affect minority electoral opportunities), 
and to  relax the standard of proof that plaintiffs must satisfy (from “more 
likely  than not” to something more lenient, such as “significantly likely”
). 
Let me be clear: I am not arguing that Section 2’s legislative history  
compels the conclusion that plaintiffs trace their injury to racially biased  
decisionmaking shown to a “significant likelihood.”  Section’s 2’s text  
and legislative history are perfectly compatible with a mushy, unstructured  
legal standard in which liability turns on the judge’s unexplained weighing 
of  any number of factors related to minority political participation, past  
discrimination, socio-economic conditions, voting patterns, and the 
electoral  system itself.  But the requirement I propose makes sense of the warring  
intuitions in the legislative history, and would make Section 2 
adjudication  more normatively transparent.  And as I’ll explain next, it substantially 
 resolves some lingering doubts about Section 2’s constitutionality. 
Congress enacted the Section 2 results test as an exercise of its power to  
enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.  The Supreme Court has  
_since  held_ (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?
navby=search&court=US&case=/us/000/95-2074.html)  that enforcement legislation under the 
Fourteenth Amendment is  permissible only insofar as it is a “congruent and 
proportional” response to  constitutional violations.  (The same tailoring 
and proportionality  requirement likely applies to enforcement legislation 
under the Fifteenth  Amendment.) 
[Continue reading below the fold] _Continue reading →_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26156#more-26156)  

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26156&title=Elemendorf:%20Making%20Sense%20of%20Section%202%20–
%20Part%202%20(Injury%20and%20Proof)&description=) 

Posted in _guest blogging election  law scholarship_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=64) , _Voting Rights Act_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15)   
| Comments Off 

_“New Hampshire  Dispatch: Ballots Already Cast in Presidential Primary”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26154)  
Posted  on _December 6, 2011 8:14 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26154) 
 by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)   

_The  latest_ 
(http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/initiatives_detail.aspx?initiativeID=85899362969#Dec6)  Pew election data dispatch. 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26154&title=“
New%20Hampshire%20Dispatch:%20Ballots%20Already%20Cast%20in%20Presidential%20Primary”&description=) 

Posted in _campaigns_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59) , _election  
administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18)  | Comments Off 

_“In race for campaign  funds from billionaires, Romney outpaces Obama”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26152)  
Posted  on _December 6, 2011 8:12 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26152) 
 by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)   

WaPo _reports_ 
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-race-for-campaign-funds-from-billionaires-romney-outpaces-obama/2011/12/01/gIQAxQLsXO_story.ht
ml) . 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26152&title=“
In%20race%20for%20campaign%20funds%20from%20billionaires,%20Romney%20outpaces%20Obama”&description=) 

Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10)   | 
Comments Off 

_Campaign Finance Flow  Chart from Mother Jones_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26149)  
Posted  on _December 6, 2011 8:08 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26149) 
 by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)   

_Very  amusing_ 
(http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/campaign-finance-flow-chart) . 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26149&title=Campaign%20Finance%20Flow%20Chart%20from%20Mother%20Jones&description
=) 

Posted in _Uncategorized_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1)   | Comments 
Off 

_Read Texas’s Reply in  Congressional Stay Request; SCOTUS Decision Coming 
Any Time_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26145)  
Posted  on _December 6, 2011 8:02 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26145) 
 by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)   

_Here_ (http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/texas-cong-reply.pdf) 
. 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26145&title=Read%20Texas’
s%20Reply%20in%20Congressional%20Stay%20Request;%20SCOTUS%20Decision%20Coming%20Any%20Time&description=) 

Posted in _redistricting_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6) , _Voting 
Rights Act_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15)   | Comments Off 

_Vermeule on Pildes on  “The Supreme Court as a Majoritarian Institution”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26142)  
Posted  on _December 6, 2011 7:55 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26142) 
 by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)   

_Here_ 
(http://conlaw.jotwell.com/the-short-run-inelasticity-of-constitutional-law/) ,  at Jotwell. 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26142&title=Vermeule%20on%20Pildes%20on%20“
The%20Supreme%20Court%20as%20a%20Majoritarian%20Institution”&description=) 

Posted in _Supreme Court_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29)   | Comments 
Off 

_“Is It Time to Stop  Voting on Tuesdays?”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26139)  
Posted  on _December 6, 2011 7:53 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26139) 
 by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)   

CBS News_  reports_ 
(http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57336755-503544/is-it-time-to-stop-voting-on-tuesdays/?tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea) . 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26139&title=“Is%20It%20Time%20to%20Stop%20Voting%20on%20Tuesdays?”
&description=) 

Posted in _election  administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18)  
| Comments Off 
-- 
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and Political  Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite  1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 -  fax
_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) 
_http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html_ 
(http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html) 
_http://electionlawblog.org_ (http://electionlawblog.org/) 

_______________________________________________
Law-election  mailing  list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111206/cec5b966/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111206/cec5b966/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111206/cec5b966/attachment-0001.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111206/cec5b966/attachment-0002.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111206/cec5b966/attachment-0003.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111206/cec5b966/attachment-0004.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111206/cec5b966/attachment-0005.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111206/cec5b966/attachment-0006.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111206/cec5b966/attachment-0007.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111206/cec5b966/attachment-0008.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111206/cec5b966/attachment-0009.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111206/cec5b966/attachment-0010.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111206/cec5b966/attachment-0011.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111206/cec5b966/attachment-0012.bin>