[EL] Texas reply brief, W. Va. maps struck, and more
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Tue Jan 3 13:31:45 PST 2012
My suggestion is to simply fix the cause of this "problem," raise
contribution limits. Jim Bopp
_“Welcome to the Super PAC Nation”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27332)
Posted on _January 3, 2012 12:06 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27332)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Greg Sargent_
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/welcome-to-super-pac-nation/2012/01/03/gIQA6orfYP_blog.html) :
So in sum: We are going to see hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars
worth of ads bombarding millions of voters for months on end, with no
knowledge of who is paying for them, no accountability at all for the
candidates who are directly benefiting from them, and no meaningful effort to rebut
the countless lies, distortions and sleazy attacks they’ll be leveling on
a daily basis — ones that will directly impact who controls Congress and
the White House next year.
Welcome to Super PAC Nation
In a message dated 1/3/2012 4:14:17 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
_“Much Commentary on Virginia Ballot Access Shows Utter Ignorance of
History of Ballot Access Litigation”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27339)
Posted on _January 3, 2012 1:12 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27339)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
Richard Winger _comments_
(http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/01/03/much-commentary-on-virginia-ballot-access-shows-utter-ignorance-of-history-of-ballot-
access-litigation/) .
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27339&title=“
Much%20Commentary%20on%20Virginia%20Ballot%20Access%20Shows%20Utter%20Ignorance%20of%20History%20of%20Ballot%20Access%20Litigation”
&description=)
Posted in _ballot access_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46) | Comments
Off
_“Three-judge federal panel says W.Va. Congressional redistricting is not
constitutional.”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27337)
Posted on _January 3, 2012 1:11 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27337)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
See _this opinion_
(http://www.wvsd.uscourts.gov/district/opinions/pdf/JeffersonMemOpOrd.pdf) (via the _Charleston Daily Mail_
(http://www.dailymail.com/News/breakingnews/201201030053) ).
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27337&title=“
Three-judge%20federal%20panel%20says%20W.Va.%20Congressional%20redistricting%20is%20not%20constitutional.”&description=)
Posted in _redistricting_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6) | Comments
Off
_Texas on Defensive in SCOTUS Redistricting Reply Brief_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27335)
Posted on _January 3, 2012 1:08 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27335)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
You can read the brief _here_
(https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BxeOfQQnUr_gZjQzOWQyNTQtMzlkMi00YjZjLWIyNzQtMmUwYjY5MD
g0ZDY5&hl=en_US) (Texas Redistricting is _posting_
(http://txredistricting.org/post/15224291727/reply-briefs-in-the-scotus-case) all the reply
briefs as they come in). I was struck in reading the Texas brief how much less
persuasive it seemed than the earlier filings (the stay requests and
opening brief), which I thought were quite strong. Texas made a strategic
decision to try to blow off the significance of the D.C. court opinion explaining
the denial of summary judgment, and that seemed to me to be a mistake.
The problem is that the opening brief put a lot of weight on the the question
whether Texas was likely to succeed on the merits in the underlyling
preclearance dispute before the D.C. court, and the DC opinion which came later
really seemed to undermine that argument.
Also noteworthy in this brief is that Texas alludes the the potential
unconstitutionality of section 5, an issue not squarely presented in the case: “
If any argument in this case is ‘extreme,’ NAACP Br. 24, or ‘absurd,’
Rodriguez Br. 28, it is Appellees’ argument (fully endorsed by the Texas
court) that a district court has carte blanche to rewrite a duly enacted state
law—and order elections to be conducted under that judicially drawn map—
solely because the preclearance process is taking too long, without any
finding that those alterations are necessary to remedy a likely violation of law
and narrowly tailored to do so. If that is really what Section 5 requires,
then the doubts about its constitutionality are even graver than this Court
feared in Northwest Austin.”
Finally, in talking about who was responsible for the delay in the
preclearance process, Texas describes the state of the current administrative
preclearance request of its voter identification law: “Texas’ decision to seek
administrative preclearance of its recently enacted voter identification
law further illustrates this point. Texas sought administrative preclearance
from DOJ on July 25, 2011, less than a week after filing its judicial
preclearance action for its redistricting maps. On September 23, 2011, at the
very end of the 60-day review period, DOJ requested additional information.
Nearly two months after that, on November 16, 2011, DOJ asserted that the
State’s submission was insufficient. Over 160 days have now elapsed since
Texas submitted its Voter ID law for preclearance, and DOJ still has not made
a final decision about whether it will interpose objections.”
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27335&title=Texas%20on%20Defensive%20in%20SCOTUS%20Redistricting%20Reply%20Brief&
description=)
Posted in _Department of Justice_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26) ,
_redistricting_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6) , _Supreme Court_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29) , _Voting Rights Act_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15) | Comments Off
_“Welcome to the Super PAC Nation”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27332)
Posted on _January 3, 2012 12:06 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27332)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Greg Sargent_
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/welcome-to-super-pac-nation/2012/01/03/gIQA6orfYP_blog.html) :
So in sum: We are going to see hundreds and hundreds of millions of
dollars worth of ads bombarding millions of voters for months on end, with no
knowledge of who is paying for them, no accountability at all for the
candidates who are directly benefiting from them, and no meaningful effort to rebut
the countless lies, distortions and sleazy attacks they’ll be leveling on
a daily basis — ones that will directly impact who controls Congress and
the White House next year.
Welcome to Super PAC Nation.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27332&title=“Welcome%20to%20the%20Super%20PAC%20Nation”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) |
Comments Off
_“Wisconsin: No Roger, No Rerun, No Recall? Barrett and the unusual nature
of the recall Rematch/Rerun”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27329)
Posted on _January 3, 2012 12:02 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27329)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_This item_
(http://recallelections.blogspot.com/2012/01/wisconsin-no-roger-no-rerun-no-recall.html) appears on the Recall Elections Blog.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27329&title=“
Wisconsin:%20No%20Roger,%20No%20Rerun,%20No%20Recall?%20Barrett%20and%20the%20unusual%20nature%20of%20the%20recall%20Rematch/Rerun”
&description=)
Posted in _recall elections_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=11) |
Comments Off
_“Like 6 Double Barrel Blast From Big Sky Country: Montana Rejects
Citizens United “_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27326)
Posted on _January 3, 2012 11:24 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27326)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy _blogs_
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ciara-torresspelliscy/double-barrel-blast-from-_b_1181050.html) .
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27326&title=“
Like%206%20Double%20Barrel%20Blast%20From%20Big%20Sky%20Country:%20Montana%20Rejects%20Citizens%20United%20“&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) |
Comments Off
_“Iowa’s Other Peculiar Institution”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27321)
Posted on _January 3, 2012 9:38 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27321)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_David Schoenbaum_
(http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/iowas-other-peculiar-institution/?hp) on Iowa redistricting at the NYT “
Campaign Stops” blog.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27321&title=“Iowa’s%20Other%20Peculiar%20Institution”&description=)
Posted in _redistricting_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6) | Comments
Off
_“Is Privacy Act Violated as Voting War’s GOP Hit Man is Fed Leaks By
Justice Department Mole?”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27318)
Posted on _January 3, 2012 9:03 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27318)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_AlterNet_
(http://www.alternet.org/story/153630/is_privacy_act_violated_as_voting_war’s_gop_hit_man_is_fed_leaks_by_justice_department_mole/) : “A
crusading GOP critic of the Obama Justice Department’s Voting Section, Hans
von Spakovsky, has admitted to having Department sources that are leaking
apparently confidential and highly personal information that he is using to
viciously attack Voting Section staff and to smear the Department at large.”
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27318&title=“Is%20Privacy%20Act%20Violated%20as%20Voting%20War’
s%20GOP%20Hit%20Man%20is%20Fed%20Leaks%20By%20Justice%20Department%20Mole?”&description=)
Posted in _chicanery_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12) , _Department of
Justice_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26) | Comments Off
_Mitt Romney Almost Certainly is Not a Liar About His Super PACs_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27315)
Posted on _January 3, 2012 8:56 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27315)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
Newt Gingrich _accused_
(http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57351153/gingrich-mitt-romney-is-a-liar/) Mitt Romney of lying about whether he is
coordinating with pro-Romney Super PACs. These PACs have been pummeling
Gingrich with negative ads in Iowa, which many believe has let to Gingrich’s
big fall in the Iowa polls.
Here is the _relevant exchange_
(http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/01/03/gingrich_says_romney_is_a_liar.html) between Gingrich and CBS’s Norah O’
Donnell:
Norah O’Donnell: “You scolded Mitt Romney, his friends who are running
this Super PAC that has funded that, and you said of Mitt Romney, ‘Someone
who will lie to you to get to be president will lie to you when they are
president. I have to ask you, are you calling Mitt Romney a liar?”
Gingrich: “Yes.”
O’Donnell: “You’re calling Mitt Romney a liar?”
Gingrich: “Well, you seem shocked by it! This is a man whose staff created
the PAC, his millionaire friends fund the PAC, he pretends he has nothing
to do with the PAC — it’s baloney. He’s not telling the American people
the truth.”
I have no inside information on any communications between Mr. Romney and
supportive super PACs. But Mr. Romney seems like a very intelligent and
cautious person. If he had any communications with the Super PACs, he could
be in very serious legal trouble—not to mention that the political fallout
from a potential criminal violation of campaign finance laws would be
enormous.
And there is absolutely no upside to illegal coordinating. As Mr.
Gingrich himself explains, the people running the pro-Romney Super PAC know Mitt
Romney well, understand his campaign strategy, and have deep pockets. They
can simply follow Romney’s lead—and be much more negative than Romney,
leaving the candidate unsullied and his opponents beaten up—without risking
any legal liability.
It is irresponsible for Mr. Gingrich to accuse Mr. Romney of lying without
a shred of evidence. The crime here is not that Romney is coordinating.
It is the system of superPACs which threatens the integrity of our
legislative and electoral process.
UPDATE: To be clear, Mr. Gingrich seems to be accusing Mr. Romney of
illegal coordination. Romney is allowed to have some contact with donors to
the super PAC, etc., without violating the FEC rules (such as they are) on
what counts as coordination.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27315&title=Mitt%20Romney%20Almost%20Certainly%20is%20Not%20a%20Liar%20About%20Hi
s%20Super%20PACs&description=)
--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's 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/20120103/746fcf71/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/20120103/746fcf71/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/20120103/746fcf71/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/20120103/746fcf71/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/20120103/746fcf71/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/20120103/746fcf71/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/20120103/746fcf71/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/20120103/746fcf71/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/20120103/746fcf71/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/20120103/746fcf71/attachment-0008.bin>
View list directory