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

[Dan Johnson]

That definition shouldn't be too difficult. No former campaign staffers
would be an easy start.

Dan

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Steve Klein <stephen.klein.esq at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.
> *
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>



-- 
Dan Johnson

Attorney at Law
111 West Washington, Suite 1920
Chicago, Illinois 60602

312.867.5377 (office)
312.933.4890 (mobile)
312.794.7064 (fax)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120103/44ea54ce/attachment.html>