[EL] ELB News and Commentary 8/29/12
Joe La Rue
joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
Wed Aug 29 09:12:52 PDT 2012
SERIOUS QUESTION: How is the email the voter ID law's author responded to
racist? McClatchy says it is,
asserting<http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/08/28/163886/sc-lawmaker-admits-positive-response.html>:
a man named Ed Koziol, used racially charged rhetoric to denounce the idea
that poor, black voters might lack transportation or other resources
necessary to obtain photo ID. If the legislature offered a reward for
identification cards, “it would be like a swarm of bees going after a
watermelon,” Koziol wrote.
Read more here:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/08/28/163886/sc-lawmaker-admits-positive-response.html#storylink=cpy
But, how is *that *racist? I would understand, if the email had said it
would be like "a swarm of *black people*" going after a watermelon (I know
the racist stereotype about all black people loving watermelon), or
used the racially-derogatory word for "black people" that, unfortunately,
we all know. But how is "a swarm of bees" "going after a watermelon"
racist? I really don't understand. Is it because "bees" might stand for the
"b" in black people? Or is it because it said "watermelon," such that any
reference to "watermelon" is necessarily racist? Or is it that suggesting
that people might get ID cards if they were paid to do so is racist? (If
that's it, it must be racist against *white* people, because I'm white, and
I'd love to be compensated for my time standing at the DMV).
Seriously: can anybody explain to m why McClatchy says this email was
racist?
Joe
___________________
*Joseph E. La Rue*
cell: 480.272.2715
email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail
and destroy all copies of the original message.
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
> ‘Author of Voter ID Law Admits to Racist Email”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39301>
> Posted on August 29, 2012 8:52 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39301> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Political Wire reports.<http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/08/29/author_of_voter_id_law_admits_to_racist_email.html>
>
> More from McClatchy.<http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/28/2972807/s-carolina-lawmaker-admits-positive.html>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D39301&title=%E2%80%98Author%20of%20Voter%20ID%20Law%20Admits%20to%20Racist%20Email%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, The Voting
> Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
> | Comments Off
> Kuff’s World on the Texas Redstricting Decision<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39299>
> Posted on August 29, 2012 8:52 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39299> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Here<http://blog.chron.com/kuffsworld/2012/08/federal-court-refuses-to-preclear-texas-redistricting-maps/>
> .
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D39299&title=Kuff%E2%80%99s%20World%20on%20the%20Texas%20Redstricting%20Decision&description=>
> Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Voting
> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
> ‘Congressional Staff and the Revolving Door: The Impact of Regulatory
> Change’ <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39296>
> Posted on August 29, 2012 8:43 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39296> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Lee Drutman and Bruce Cain have posted this draft<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2107220>on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
>
> We ask whether the 2007 Honest Leadership and Open Government Act lobbying
> regulations had the desired impact. We also develop and test a theory of
> why congressional staffers leave to become lobbyists. Our basic findings
> are as follows: The likelihood of moving from Congressional staff to
> lobbyist is highest for the more experienced and better-paid staff. The
> 2007 lobbying reforms had a measurable effect on lobbying registration in
> the first year out, but a much smaller effect on the probability of
> lobbying eventually. The effects were stronger in the Senate, which put in
> place tougher rules. We find no partisan differences.
>
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D39296&title=%E2%80%98Congressional%20Staff%20and%20the%20Revolving%20Door%3A%20The%20Impact%20of%20Regulatory%20Change%E2%80%99&description=>
> Posted in legislation and legislatures<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>,
> lobbying <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28> | Comments Off
> “Democracy on the High Wire: Citizen Commission Implementation of the
> Voting Rights Act” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39293>
> Posted on August 29, 2012 8:35 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39293> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Justin Levitt has posted this draft
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2128923>on SSRN.
> Here is the abstract:
>
> The Voting Rights Act, often praised as the most successful civil rights
> statute, is among the most fact-intensive of election regulations.
> California, the country’s most populous and most diverse state, is among
> the most challenging terrain for applying the Act. California is also the
> largest jurisdiction at the vanguard of a burgeoning experiment in indirect
> direct democracy: allowing lay citizens, not incumbent officials, to
> regulate the infrastructure of representation.
>
> In 2011, fourteen California citizens strode into the briar patch where
> citizen institutions intersect the Voting Rights Act. These fourteen
> comprised the state’s brand-new Citizens Redistricting Commission: an
> official body of laypersons responsible for applying, in the face of
> substantial public skepticism, the most nuanced of regulations to the most
> complex political landscape in the country.
>
> This article, building on prior theoretical work regarding citizen control
> of public institutions, assesses the new Citizens Commission’s approach to
> complying with the Voting Rights Act. It offers the first comprehensive
> review of an actual citizen commission’s engagement with a legal structure
> that is poorly understood by most citizens. The article opens a rare window
> not only on the procedures involved in implementing the Voting Rights Act —
> including new amendments applied to redistricting for the first time in
> 2011 — but on the process by which a citizens commission may undertake
> public responsibilities more generally. And in so doing, it highlights
> decision paths likely to inform not only future citizen bodies, but a range
> of officials confronting the Voting Rights Act across the country.
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D39293&title=%E2%80%9CDemocracy%20on%20the%20High%20Wire%3A%20Citizen%20Commission%20Implementation%20of%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in citizen commissions <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=7>,
> redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> | Comments Off
> “Texas Voter District Maps Rejected by U.S. Judges”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39290>
> Posted on August 29, 2012 8:08 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39290> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Bloomberg reports.<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-28/texas-voter-district-maps-rejected-by-u-s-judges.html>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D39290&title=%E2%80%9CTexas%20Voter%20District%20Maps%20Rejected%20by%20U.S.%20Judges%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>,
> redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> | Comments Off
> “Donors Invest Millions in Romney for Billions in Returns”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39287>
> Posted on August 29, 2012 8:04 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39287> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Bloomberg<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-29/donors-invest-millions-in-romney-for-billions-in-returns.html>:
> ‘Top Republican contributors say they back the party’s presidential
> candidate Mitt Romney <http://topics.bloomberg.com/mitt-romney/> because
> they agree with his small-government philosophy or oppose President Barack
> Obama <http://topics.bloomberg.com/barack-obama/>’s new regulations on
> banks and the health-care industry. Yet Romney is more than just a
> political kindred spirit; he’s a sound investment. Here’s how a Romney
> presidency might pay off — literally — for some of these super-donors.”
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D39287&title=%E2%80%9CDonors%20Invest%20Millions%20in%20Romney%20for%20Billions%20in%20Returns%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
> “Not Last, At Last: Online Voter Registration Comes to New York”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39284>
> Posted on August 29, 2012 8:01 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39284> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> A ChapinBlog<http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/electionacademy/2012/08/not_last_at_last_online_voter.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HHHElections+%28The+Election+Aacdemy%29>
> .
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D39284&title=%E2%80%9CNot%20Last%2C%20At%20Last%3A%20Online%20Voter%20Registration%20Comes%20to%20New%20York%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, voting
> technology <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40> | Comments Off
> “Judge Issues Injunction Against Ohio’s ‘Wrong Precinct’ Election Law”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39281>
> Posted on August 29, 2012 7:58 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39281> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The *Daily Beast* reports<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/29/judge-issues-injunction-against-ohio-s-wrong-precinct-election-law.html>
> .
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D39281&title=%E2%80%9CJudge%20Issues%20Injunction%20Against%20Ohio%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%98Wrong%20Precinct%E2%80%99%20Election%20Law%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, provisional
> ballots <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=67>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
> | Comments Off
> Texas Redistricting Story Roundup <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39277>
> Posted on August 28, 2012 8:22 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39277> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Reuters<http://wsau.com/news/articles/2012/aug/28/federal-court-blocks-texas-voter-id-law/>
>
> Austin American-Statesman<http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/texas-redistricting-plan-denied-preclearance-abbott-will-appeal-2445139.html>
>
> Houston Chronicle<http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Panel-tosses-Texas-redistricting-maps-3822580.php>
>
> National Law Journal<http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202569400775&DC_federal_court_finds_Texas_redistricting_plan_discriminatory&slreturn=20120728231702>
>
> San Antonio Express-News<http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/S-Texas-districts-at-heart-of-redistricting-3822438.php>
>
> Washington Post<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/texas-redistricting-discriminates-against-minorities-federal-court-says/2012/08/28/f6e6a2e0-f156-11e1-892d-bc92fee603a7_story.html>
>
> CNN<http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/28/politics/texas-redistricting/index.html>
>
> New York Times<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/us/federal-court-calls-texas-voting-maps-discriminatory.html?_r=1&ref=politics>
>
> SCOTUSBlog <http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/08/texas-election-maps-voided/>
>
> AP<http://hosted2.ap.org/PAERI/APOdd/Article_2012-08-28-Texas%20Redistricting/id-edee68bac4c444bebcde743ecceec404>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D39277&title=Texas%20Redistricting%20Story%20Roundup&description=>
> Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>,
> redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> | Comments Off
> “Over Loud Boos, Romney Supporters Pass New Rules”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39274>
> Posted on August 28, 2012 7:57 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39274> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NYT’s “The Caucus” blog<http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/over-loud-boos-romney-supporters-pass-new-rules/>:
> ” Mitt Romney’s supporters passed new rules governing future primaries over
> the loud boos of Ron Paul supporters and other conservative activists who
> had objected to what they said was a power grab by the party’s
> establishment leaders.”
>
> Don’t miss the picture accompanying the article.
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D39274&title=%E2%80%9COver%20Loud%20Boos%2C%20Romney%20Supporters%20Pass%20New%20Rules%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in political parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,
> primaries <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32> | Comments Off
> Will the Texas Redistricting Opinion Affect This November’s Elections?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39266>
> Posted on August 28, 2012 7:25 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39266> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I thought the answer was certainly “no,” but Michael Li offers
> <http://txredistricting.org/post/30405333129/so-what-happens-now>some
> alternative possibilities.
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D39266&title=Will%20the%20Texas%20Redistricting%20Opinion%20Affect%20This%20November%E2%80%99s%20Elections%3F&description=>
> Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>,
> redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> | Comments Off
> Greg Colvin Sends Letter to IRS to Try to Get Some Clarity on What
> 501(c)4s Can Do in Terms of Political Activity<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39261>
> Posted on August 28, 2012 7:19 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39261> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
> Reprinted below with permission:
> *From:* Gregory L. Colvin
> *Sent:* Friday, August 24, 2012 3:36 PM
> *To:* ‘Lerner Lois G’
> *Subject:* General Information Letter on 2 Issue Advocacy Revenue Rulings
> You’ll recall my May 7, 2012, letter suggesting that the IRS clear up
> the confusion surrounding how to use the two existing Revenue Rulings to
> determine, for instance, whether a (c)(4) has done too much political
> campaign activity to qualify for exemption.
> Short of a new, consolidated ruling on issue advocacy vs. political
> campaign intervention, it seemed to me that if the Service could answer a
> few obvious, pointed questions about how the two Rulings should be
> construed, in a “general information letter,” many recurring misconceptions
> could be corrected.
> In my request, attached,<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/IRS-Rev-Ruls-on-Issue-Ads-GIL-request-00430120-1.pdf>I pose four common questions and the proposed answers. If I’m right, this
> gives the IRS the opportunity to state, on the record, how these two
> rulings should be applied without altering them or making any new
> interpretations of the law.
> If you can do this, with all deliberate speed, I believe it will properly
> focus public attention on the existence of real criteria for determining
> what is legitimate issue advocacy during the current election and what is
> not. And it would make real compliance more likely.
> I look forward to your reply.
> Gregory L. Colvin
> Adler & Colvin
> 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1220
> San Francisco, CA 94104
> Tel: 415-421-7555 x.211
> Fax: 415-421-0712
> email: colvin at adlercolvin.com www.adlercolvin.com
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D39261&title=Greg%20Colvin%20Sends%20Letter%20to%20IRS%20to%20Try%20to%20Get%20Some%20Clarity%20on%20What%20501%28c%294s%20Can%20Do%20in%20Terms%20of%20Political%20Activity&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax
> law and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> | Comments Off
> On Going Straight to Federal Court with a Section 5 Challenge<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39258>
> Posted on August 28, 2012 7:13 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39258> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> A reader writes:
>
> What are the odds that Hans von Spakovsky will admit this was bad advice?
>
> *Abusing the Voting Rights Act<http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/260303>
> *
>
> *
> *
>
> *The lesson here is that Republican-controlled legislatures that have
> drawn up redistricting plans that Democrats don’t like would be foolish to
> submit those plans to the Civil Rights Division for administrative review.Instead, they should go straight to the federal district court in D.C.
> , the alternative procedure set forth in the Voting Rights Act. *
> *
> *
> *States must understand that they cannot expect to get an impartial
> hearing from this Justice Department. They may still get a panel of
> liberal judges in federal court, but at least normal evidentiary standards
> will apply. In court, DOJ will have to provide actual evidence of
> discrimination — not the rank hearsay and imaginary evidence often
> considered in its own administrative review. Moreover, states will be
> able to cross-examine their accusers in court. That doesn’t happen in the
> administrative setting. Indeed, the Justice Department often refuses to
> even tell states who has accused them of discrimination in their
> redistricting process. *(emphasis mine)
>
> From today’s DDC Opinion (p. 43)
>
> *Next we consider Texas’s request to preclear its State Senate Plan. The
> United States has not objected to this plan, but the *[Intervenors did]* argue
> that the Senate Plan retrogresses and was enacted with discriminatory
> intent. Their arguments concern a single district, Senate District (SD) 10,
> which they contend is a coalition district in the benchmark plan, and which
> all parties agree is not an ability district in the enacted plan. These
> Intervenors also argue that discriminatory purpose motivated the
> legislature’s decision to break up SD 10. We conclude that benchmark SD 10
> is not a coalition district, and thus that the Senate Plan is not
> retrogressive. Nevertheless, we deny preclearance because Texas failed to
> carry its burden to show that it acted without discriminatory purpose in
> the face of largely unrebutted defense evidence and clear on-the-ground
> evidence of “cracking” minority communities of interest in SD 10. Thus,
> we conclude that the Texas legislature redrew the boundaries for SD 10 with
> discriminatory intent.*
> *
> *
> So much for avoiding a Department hell-bent on objecting to Republican
> plans and having the opportunity to cross-examine accusers…
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D39258&title=On%20Going%20Straight%20to%20Federal%20Court%20with%20a%20Section%205%20Challenge&description=>
> Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>,
> redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> | Comments Off
> More on the Problem of Local Discretion in Administering Voter ID Laws<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39255>
> Posted on August 28, 2012 7:07 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39255> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Back in July I blogged abou <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37605>t the
> problem with pollworker discretion when it comes to implementing
> Pennsylvania’s voter id law. Under the PA law, pollworkers are allowed to
> accept id’s which “substantially conform” to state requirements. I
> suggested this raises questions about due process and subconscious partisan
> tilt, and generally speaking that discretion at the local partisan level is
> really to be avoided if possible. (In my view, this substantial discretion
> raises serious constitutional issues with Pa.’s voter id law wholly apart
> from other questions.)
>
> Well this same issue has emerged in the South Carolina voter id trial in
> DC, in a fairly dramatic way. From Pam Fessler’s must-read report:<http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/08/28/160211106/reasonable-impediment-clause-becomes-focus-of-s-c-voter-id-law-hearing?ft=1&f=1014&sc=tw>
>
> Some interesting testimony Tuesday in the federal trial over South
> Carolina’s new voter ID law<http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/08/27/160113959/s-carolinas-voter-id-law-challenged-in-federal-court>
> .
>
> It came from the state’s election director, Marci Andino. She was
> explaining her plans for implementing the law if it gets approved by the
> court, and how poll workers would be instructed to handle a controversial
> provision involving something called “reasonable impediment.”
>
> The provision would allow citizens without a valid photo ID to vote — but
> only if they sign an affidavit saying they had a “reasonable impediment”
> that kept them from getting the proper identification. The meaning of
> “reasonable impediment” is so vague in the law that opponents have
> complained that it’s basically meaningless.
>
> But Andino said it could describe some physical or medical obstacle, and
> could include things such as a lack of transportation to get to a motor
> vehicle office or election office. She also said a voter could legitimately
> use the excuse that he or she didn’t have enough time to get a photo ID
> before the election.
>
> The ballots cast by these individuals would be provisional, but Andino
> said they would eventually be counted — unless someone could show that an
> individual had lied.
>
> Essentially, she said it was up to the voter to determine what was a
> “reasonable impediment” and that she was instructing poll managers to
> accept the voter’s explanation.
>
> Members of the three-judge panel in U.S. District Court in Washington,
> D.C., appeared surprised
>
> Considering there’s only a short time before the Nov. 6 election, does
> that mean every South Carolina voter without a photo ID would have a
> “reasonable impediment” getting one, asked U.S. Circuit Judge Brett
> Kavanaugh?
>
> “Yes, that’s possible,” Andino replied.
>
> Pressed by U.S. District Judge John Bates, Andino said that she didn’t
> think the law would disenfranchise anyone already legally allowed to vote.
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D39255&title=More%20on%20the%20Problem%20of%20Local%20Discretion%20in%20Administering%20Voter%20ID%20Laws&description=>
> Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>, election
> administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,
> voter id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> | Comments Off
> “Texas Redistricting Hits Minorities, Court Rules”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39252>
> Posted on August 28, 2012 4:52 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39252> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Jess Bravin reports<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444230504577617823569923652.html>for WSJ.
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D39252&title=%E2%80%9CTexas%20Redistricting%20Hits%20Minorities%2C%20Court%20Rules%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>,
> redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> | Comments Off
> “Judges Toss Out Texas’ New Redistricting Maps”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39250>
> Posted on August 28, 2012 4:51 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39250> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Carrie Johnson reports
> <http://www.npr.org/2012/08/28/160196041/judges-toss-out-texas-new-redistricting-maps>for
> NPR.
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D39250&title=%E2%80%9CJudges%20Toss%20Out%20Texas%E2%80%99%20New%20Redistricting%20Maps%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>,
> redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> | Comments Off
> Ari Berman on Today’s Texas Redistricting Decision<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39247>
> Posted on August 28, 2012 4:42 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39247> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Here,<http://www.thenation.com/blog/169602/federal-court-blocks-discriminatory-texas-redistricting-plan>at
> *The Nation*.
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D39247&title=Ari%20Berman%20on%20Today%E2%80%99s%20Texas%20Redistricting%20Decision&description=>
> Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>,
> redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> | Comments Off
> “New D.C. Campaign Finance Reform Would Ban Lobbyist Bundling”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39244>
> Posted on August 28, 2012 4:37 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39244> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> BLT reports<http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2012/08/new-dc-campaign-finance-reform-would-ban-lobbyist-bundling.html>
> .
>
> I’ve made the argument that a ban on lobbyist bundling is supported by the
> government’s interest in promoting economic welfare/minimizing rent seeking
> in this *Stanford Law Review *article.<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1734428>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D39244&title=%E2%80%9CNew%20D.C.%20Campaign%20Finance%20Reform%20Would%20Ban%20Lobbyist%20Bundling%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
> lobbying <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28> | Comments Off
> “How Americans for Prosperity Will Keep Hiding Donors in Shifting
> Election Landscape, but Retain Tax-Exempt Status”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39241>
> Posted on August 28, 2012 1:10 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39241> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> This item<http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/08/11722/how-americans-prosperity-will-keep-hiding-donors-shifting-election-landscape-reta>appears at PR Watch.
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D39241&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20Americans%20for%20Prosperity%20Will%20Keep%20Hiding%20Donors%20in%20Shifting%20Election%20Landscape%2C%20but%20Retain%20Tax-Exempt%20Status%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax
> law and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> | Comments Off
> “Husted fires 2 Montgomery County elections officials who defied new
> rules on early voting” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39238>
> Posted on August 28, 2012 1:00 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=39238> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The latest
> <http://www.toledoblade.com/Politics/2012/08/28/Husted-fires-2-Montgomery-County-elections-officials-who-defied-new-rules-on-early-voting.html>from
> Ohio.
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D39238&title=%E2%80%9CHusted%20fires%202%20Montgomery%20County%20elections%20officials%20who%20defied%20new%20rules%20on%20early%20voting%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
> | Comments Off
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.htmlhttp://electionlawblog.org
> Now available: The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTv
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120829/599df635/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120829/599df635/attachment.png>
View list directory