[EL] more news 11/11/11

Fri Nov 11 16:57:32 PST 2011

Rick says of the latest Colbert escapades, "This is actually an incredibly
effective strategy to put public attention on an important advisory opinion
request..."

There is no doubt then: Colbert has proven that corporately funded speech
can spur valuable grassroots activism.  That's pretty much the holding
in *Citizens
United.*
The thing to watch for will be this:  Should the Crossroads advisory
opinion split 3-3, will the reformers praise the citizen involvement that
helped stop this AO, or decry another "deadlock" on the Commission?

I am guessing both -- in turns, and to the extent it serves their aim of
achieving an odd-numbered Commission run by a "strong" Chairman.

Steve Hoersting

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>   Americans Elect Responds to My Oped, Does Not Dispute My Points on
> Disclosure, Transparency, or Lack of Democracy<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25347>
> Posted on November 11, 2011 4:17 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25347>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Read the letter to the editor<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68156.html>here.  I raised three points: (1) the group has offered no reason to fail
> to disclose its donors; (2) its internet election plans are troubling
> because they are insecure; and (3) the group’s by-laws and draft rules
> allow the Board to overrule voters who participate in choosing a candidate.
>
> The letter does not respond to any of these points directly.  Instead it
> says: ” Hasen echoes concerns about the Americans Elect process, none of
> which are new. We would be happy to explain our process to him and we think
> he will conclude they are unfounded. But this expert on the status quo of
> election law in this country, instead of reaching out to us for a
> discussion of his concerns, chose to issue a public broadside.”
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25347&title=Americans%20Elect%20Responds%20to%20My%20Oped%2C%20Does%20Not%20Dispute%20My%20Points%20on%20Disclosure%2C%20Transparency%2C%20or%20Lack%20of%20Democracy&description=>
>   Posted in ballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>, campaign
> finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,
> internet voting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=49> | Comments Off
>   “The Case for Reforming Presidential Elections by Subconstitutional
> Means: The Electoral College, the National Popular Vote Compact, and
> Congressional Power” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25343>
> Posted on November 11, 2011 1:33 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25343>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Vik Amar has posted this draft<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1936374>on SSRN (forthcoming,
> *Georgetown Law Journal*).  Here is the abstract:
>
> his essay addresses and debunks various criticisms of the National Popular
> Vote Compact movement, including the suggestion that a move to a national
> popular presidential election would undermine federalism or regionalism
> values and the notion that a national popular vote would produce plurality
> winners and/or embolden third-party candidates. The essay then turns to the
> key question of whether a national popular vote with different voting rules
> in each state is workable, and in particular the sources of power Congress
> has to remedy any problems with the design of the current National Popular
> Vote Compact plan being adopted by many states. There are good arguments in
> favor of Congressional power to iron out difficulties, especially once a
> compact is up and running. For this reason, the idea floated by some that
> only a constitutional amendment can bring about a national popular vote is
> misguided.
>
> I’ll be interested in reading this, because Derek Muller’s paper<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=979537>convinced me that the compact clause objection to NPV was a very serious
> one.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25343&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Case%20for%20Reforming%20Presidential%20Elections%20by%20Subconstitutional%20Means%3A%20The%20Electoral%20College%2C%20the%20National%20Popular%20Vote%20Compact%2C%20and%20Congressional%20Power%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in electoral college <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=44> | Comments
> Off
>   “Colbert super-PAC members flood FEC with fundraising comments”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25339>
> Posted on November 11, 2011 1:30 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25339>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> *The Hill* reports<http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/193033-colbert-super-pac-members-flood-fec-with-fundraising-comments>.
> This is actually an incredibly effective strategy to put public attention
> on an important advisory opinion request that would have flown mostly under
> the radar.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25339&title=%E2%80%9CColbert%20super-PAC%20members%20flood%20FEC%20with%20fundraising%20comments%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
>   “Gerrymanders by Any Standard” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25336>
> Posted on November 11, 2011 11:42 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25336>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Nick Stephanapoulos blogs<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicholas-stephanopoulos/gerrymanders-by-any-stand_b_1084985.html>
> .
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25336&title=%E2%80%9CGerrymanders%20by%20Any%20Standard%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> | Comments
> Off
>   “A different view on whether the of ranked-choice voting in San
> Francisco was “effective’” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25334>
> Posted on November 11, 2011 11:40 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25334>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Following up on this post <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25303>, Doug
> Johnson <http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/rose/staff/associates.php>posted the following comments to the election law listserv, which I reprint
> here with his permission:
>
> According to the November 10 numbers from the Department of Elections, the
> final round tally in the San Francisco Mayoral election was 79,147 votes
> for Ed Lee, 51,788 for John Avalos, and 48,983 “exhausted” ballots.
> “Exhausted” means the ballot did not contain a vote for either Lee or
> Avalos, thus the voter was excluded from sharing his/her preference in the
> final runoff.
>
> Percentage-wise, Ed Lee won the vote of 43.4% of voters participating in
> the Mayoral election. John Avalos received the final vote of 28.4% of
> voters participating in the election. And 28.2% of voters casting ballots
> in the Mayoral primary were blocked from expressing their preference in the
> final runoff (26.9% were exhausted and 1.3% were over/under votes).
>
> In fact, less than half of those not voting for Lee or Avalos in the first
> round listed either of them as their #2 or #3 choices. In the first round,
> 89,681 voters cast ballots for Lee and Avalos, while 90,431 voters
> preferred other candidates as their first choice. As those other candidates
> were eliminated, 41,254 additional votes were added to Lee and/or Avalos.
> But 48,983 ballots were “exhausted” and dropped from the counts.
>
> *By a 48,983 to 41,254 margin, San Francisco’s ranked-choice runoff
> system excluded the views of more participating voters than it added.*
>
> No system is perfect: without any runoff, Lee would have won 31% to 19%,
> with 50% of the voters participating not casting a vote for either of the
> top two. With a traditional runoff, the lower turnout that sometimes occurs
> would also mean some of the primary voters would not cast ballots in the
> runoff, though I would argue that is different because that would be by
> their choice, not by the design of the election system (and note that in
> some local CA elections, runoff turnout is higher than primary turnout). In
> SF, it is the election system that dictates the exclusion of some voters
> from the final decision whenever the counting goes more than three rounds.
> [I should acknowledge what's surely going through Larry Levine's mind right
> now: the election system in place influences campaign decisions, so this
> paragraph's comparisons to alternative systems are imperfect because
> candidates made decisions knowing they were in a RCV system.]
>
> Amidst the cheerleading for ranked-choice voting, I believe it is
> important to remember that the RCV system has substantial drawbacks too. I
> welcome the discussion of whether the drawbacks of RCV are less than the
> drawbacks of traditional no-runoff or later-runoff elections, but I would
> encourage all debaters to acknowledge that RCV is also far from perfect.
>
>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25334&title=%E2%80%9CA%20different%20view%20on%20whether%20the%20of%20ranked-choice%20voting%20in%20San%20Francisco%20was%20%E2%80%9Ceffective%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in alternative voting systems<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>
> | Comments Off
>   Number of “Dating” Lobbyists Expected to Rise in Sacramento<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25331>
> Posted on November 11, 2011 10:30 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25331>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The latest loophole<http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2011/11/new-gift-rules-benefit-legislators-dating-lobbyists.html>
> ?
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25331&title=Number%20of%20%E2%80%9CDating%E2%80%9D%20Lobbyists%20Expected%20to%20Rise%20in%20Sacramento&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
> lobbying <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28> | Comments Off
>   “Who Gets to Vote?” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25329>
> Posted on November 11, 2011 10:29 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25329>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Erica Woods has written this interesting opinion piece<http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/who-gets-to-vote/>on felon disenfranchisement for the
> *New York Times* new “Campaign Stops<http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/>”
> blog.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25329&title=%E2%80%9CWho%20Gets%20to%20Vote%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> | Comments
> Off
>   “Second Lawsuit Filed Challenging Maryland’s Congressional Map”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25325>
> Posted on November 11, 2011 9:57 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25325>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Here <http://www.redistrictingonline.org/md2ndconglawsuit111011.html>.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25325&title=%E2%80%9CSecond%20Lawsuit%20Filed%20Challenging%20Maryland%E2%80%99s%20Congressional%20Map%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> | 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
> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-- 
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111111/663cd191/attachment.html>