[EL] more Arizona: Why is no evidence needed

[Edward Still]

I would like to hear others' assessments about why the majority said, "we do
not need empirical evidence to determine that the law at issue is
burdensome."

Is it because of the presumption that violations of the First Amendment are
irreparable injuries? [Irreparable injury = burden]

Is it because the Court had applied strict scrutiny, so that the burden is
on the State?


Edward Still                         NEW CONTACT INFO
Edward Still Law Firm LLC
PMB 304
130 Wildwood Parkway, Suite 108
Birmingham AL 35209
205-320-2882 (voice & fax)
  www.votelaw.com/blog
  www.edwardstill.com
  www.linkedin.com/in/edwardstill <http://www.linkedin.com/in/edwardstill>


On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

> **
>
>  Evidence? We Don’t Need No Stinking Evidence.<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19769>
> Posted on June 27, 2011 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19769> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Chief Justice Roberts in today’s opinion (which I am now editing for our
> casebook supplement <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19226>): “As in *Davis,
> * we do not need empirical evidence to determine that the law at issue is
> burdensome. See* *554 U.S., at 738–740<http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=2016385175&ReferencePosition=738>
> * *(requiring no evidence of a burden whatsoever).”
>
> I’ve written about the Court’s wildly inconsistent approach to evidence in
> the campaign finance cases before, most recently in my *Michigan Law
> Review* article<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1620576>on
> *Citizens United.*
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110628/c3ed41c3/attachment.html>