[EL] Texas reply brief, W. Va. maps struck, and more

[Steve Klein]

>
> The solution to the "problem" therefore, would seem to be to require
> SuperPacs and other "outside groups" to be "totally independent" of
> candidates and parties (as the Supreme Court defined independent
> expenditures in Buckley)--rather than run by their best friends and current
> or former fundraisers.


I can see a definition like "best friends" going a long way under this
paradigm. Given how far some FEC definitions go, all I can say is "Rest in
peace, Will Rogers."


On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Trevor Potter <tpotter at capdale.com> wrote:


>  Unless the contribution limits are "raised" by removing them entirely
> (as Jim no doubt favors) there will always be the potential for wealthy
> donors to circumvent contribution limits by giving the maximum allowed to
> the candidate, and any additional desired money to the "candidate SuperPac"
> which under the new state of affairs can accept unlimited amounts.
> The solution to the "problem" therefore, would seem to be to require
> SuperPacs and other "outside groups" to be "totally independent" of
> candidates and parties (as the Supreme Court defined independent
> expenditures in Buckley)--rather than run by their best friends and current
> or former fundraisers. Further, we should ensure that all funds used for
> these independent expenditures are fully disclosed as to their true
> source , as the Court held in Citizens United the law could require them to
> be.
> Trevor Potter
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu on behalf of
> JBoppjr at aol.com
> *Sent:* Tue 1/3/2012 4:31 PM
> *To:* rhasen at law.uci.edu; law-election at UCI.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Texas reply brief, W. Va. maps struck, and more
>
>
>
>  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/>
> .
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27339&title=“Much
> Commentary on Virginia Ballot Access Shows Utter Ignorance of History of
> Ballot Access Litigation†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D27339&title=%E2%80%9CMuch%20Commentary%20on%20Virginia%20Ballot%20Access%20Shows%20Utter%20Ignorance%20of%20History%20of%20Ballot%20Access%20Litigation%E2%80%9D&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>).
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27337&title=“Three-judge
> federal panel says W.Va. Congressional redistricting is not
> constitutional.†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D27337&title=%E2%80%9CThree-judge%20federal%20panel%20says%20W.Va.%20Congressional%20redistricting%20is%20not%20constitutional.%E2%80%9D&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_gZjQzOWQyNTQtMzlkMi00YjZjLWIyNzQtMmUwYjY5MDg0ZDY5&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.”
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27335&title=Texas
> on Defensive in SCOTUS Redistricting Reply Brief&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D27335&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.
>
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27332&title=“Welcome
> to the Super PAC Nation†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D27332&title=%E2%80%9CWelcome%20to%20the%20Super%20PAC%20Nation%E2%80%9D&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.
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27329&title=“Wisconsin:
> No Roger, No Rerun, No Recall? Barrett and the unusual nature of the recall
> Rematch/Rerun†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D27329&title=%E2%80%9CWisconsin%3A%20No%20Roger%2C%20No%20Rerun%2C%20No%20Recall%3F%20Barrett%20and%20the%20unusual%20nature%20of%20the%20recall%20Rematch%2FRerun%E2%80%9D&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>
> .
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27326&title=“Like
> 6 Double Barrel Blast From Big Sky Country: Montana Rejects Citizens United
> “&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D27326&title=%E2%80%9CLike%206%20Double%20Barrel%20Blast%20From%20Big%20Sky%20Country%3A%20Montana%20Rejects%20Citizens%20United%20%E2%80%9C&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.
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27321&title=“Iowa’s
> Other Peculiar Institution†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D27321&title=%E2%80%9CIowa%E2%80%99s%20Other%20Peculiar%20Institution%E2%80%9D&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%E2%80%99s_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.”
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27318&title=“Is
> Privacy Act Violated as Voting War’s GOP Hit Man is Fed Leaks By Justice
> Department Mole?†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D27318&title=%E2%80%9CIs%20Privacy%20Act%20Violated%20as%20Voting%20War%E2%80%99s%20GOP%20Hit%20Man%20is%20Fed%20Leaks%20By%20Justice%20Department%20Mole%3F%E2%80%9D&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.
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27315&title=Mitt
> Romney Almost Certainly is Not a Liar About His Super PACs&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D27315&title=Mitt%20Romney%20Almost%20Certainly%20is%20Not%20a%20Liar%20About%20His%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
> 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
>
>
>
> <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> To
> ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that,
> unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this
> communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be
> used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related
> penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or
> recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein. This
> message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is from a law
> firm and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If
> you are not the intended recipient any disclosure, copying, future
> distribution, or use of this communication is prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, please advise us by return e-mail, or
> if you have received this communication by fax advise us by telephone and
> delete/destroy the document. <-->
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>


-- 

Steve Klein
Staff Attorney & Research Counsel*
Wyoming Liberty Group
www.wyliberty.org
**Licensed to practice law in Illinois. Counsel to the Wyoming Liberty
Group pursuant to Rule 5.5(d) of the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120103/a3d38519/attachment.html>