[EL] Storm brews in Canada over election "robocalls"

[Scarberry, Mark]

A twist:

With phone charges being so low (including via Skype), robocalls might originate outside the country whose elections are at issue. For example, is there any US law that would prevent robocalls from being made from the US to Canada? Would the US cooperate in any way to enforce any Canadian law prohibiting such incoming calls?

Are there US laws prohibiting such calls being made into the US? Even if there are such laws, how could they be enforced against an out-of-country caller? I suppose this could be a way (independent of Citizens United) for non-U.S.-resident foreign nationals or foreign corporations to affect US elections.

I think mailing costs are higher (and customs enforcement might theoretically be available), but I suppose the same thing could happen with mailings from the US to other countries or from other countries to the US.

I wonder also whether strong US laws against foreign interference in our elections could contribute to putting pro-democracy U.S. citizen NGO workers in other countries at risk. Consider the Egyptian affair.

Mark Scarberry
Pepperdine

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 4:56 PM
To: law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: [EL] more news 3/1/12

“Storm brews in Canada over election ‘robocalls’”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30871>
Posted on March 1, 2012 4:43 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30871> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

AFP reports<http://news.yahoo.com/storm-brews-canada-over-election-robocalls-205651401.html>.  A common theme <http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/world/canadian-politicians-fear-us-election-tricks-coming-to-canada-196334.html> of the stories coming out<http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Robocalls+shock+system+Canadian+democracy+American+expert/6230847/story.html> of Canada is that this is “importing” U.S. “dirty tricks” into Canada.

I spoke to a Canadian reporter over the last few days about these allegations, and it appears that some Canadians tend to believe that U.S. elections are rife with such tricks.  However, as I argue in chapter 3 of The Voting Wars<http://amzn.to/y22ZTv>, while such tricks (such as the New Hampshire phone jamming case or the New Black Panthers incident in Philadelphia) have been verified (unlike most allegations of impersonation voter fraud), true voter suppression incidents are: (1) relatively rare; and (2) relatively unlikely to influence the outcome of elections because (a) they are bone-headed/ham-handed schemes and (2) the counter-publicity they generate helps the other side get out the vote.
[cid:image001.png at 01CCF861.7C2F1BC0]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30871&title=%E2%80%9CStorm%20brews%20in%20Canada%20over%20election%20%E2%80%98robocalls%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
Federal Court in San Antonio Sets Texas Primary, Runoff, Ballot Rules<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30867>
Posted on March 1, 2012 4:30 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30867> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

You can find the court’s order here<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/tx-schedule-order.pdf> (via Texas Redistricting<http://txredistricting.org/post/18565882338/court-enters-order-on-election-schedule>).  May 29 primary and July 31 runoff-unless there is a further delay caused by either a Supreme Court stay request or some action from the D.C. court.
[cid:image001.png at 01CCF861.7C2F1BC0]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30867&title=Federal%20Court%20in%20San%20Antonio%20Sets%20Texas%20Primary%2C%20Runoff%2C%20Ballot%20Rules&description=>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
The Voting Wars-blurbs<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30865>
Posted on March 1, 2012 4:28 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30865> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

My book The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=22990> (Yale University Press) won’t be available until the summer, with an official publication date in August.  Amazon<http://amzn.to/y22ZTv> and Barnes and Noble<http://bit.ly/z5PosP> are accepting pre-orders. (The sneak preview chapter on voter id controversies, “The Fraudulent Fraud Squad,” is available for download<http://www.amazon.com/Fraudulent-Fraud-Squad-Understanding-ebook/dp/B00795X5XI/ref=zg_bs_157417011_9>.)  But the Amazon page<http://www.amazon.com/Voting-Wars-Florida-Election-Meltdown/dp/0300182031/ref=sr_1_cc_2?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1329286945&sr=1-2-catcorr> for the book now has posted the book blurbs.  Here they are:

“This is a Stephen King novel for elections junkies.  No one has a better eye for the next big thing in election law than Rick Hasen.  Voting Wars provides an engaging, highly readable guide to the thrill ride we call elections season.”-Heather Gerken, author of The Democracy Index:  Why Our Election System is Failing and How to Fix It

“One of the most disturbing recent US political developments is the rapid growth of election administration litigation.  Professor Hasen has masterfully described this trend, showing how political parties seek to gain advantage through election recounts, voter id laws, absentee ballot procedures, and the like. Scholars, journalists and interested citizens will benefit from Hasen”s insightful overview of this struggle and the potential for even more election related controversy and litigation in the future.”-Bruce Cain, Heller Professor of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley

“Just in time for the election, Rick Hasen brings this essential reminder of all the lessons never learned after Bush v. Gore. If we don’t course-correct our partisan voting systems and ever more partisan efforts to remedy them, Hasen reminds us that we are looking into the face of a democratic disaster.”-Dahlia Lithwick, Senior Legal Correspondent, Slate magazine

“Nobody knows more about elections and election law than Rick Hasen, and nobody writes more clearly about their complexities. The Voting Wars is a straightforward, clear-headed unbiased account of our flawed system, the multiple damaging controversies we have incurred as a consequence, the polarization that has both caused the problems and been exacerbated by them, and the risky path ahead. What a timely and important book!”-Norman J. Ornstein, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute

“Hasen has done a masterful job of describing the post-Florida 2000 battles over election registration, voting, and vote-counting. This book is a compelling read, and guide to the partisan battleground aptly titled The Voting Wars. Unfortunately, as Hasen explains, our election system is still precariously positioned, needing only one more bad series of events to create the next Presidential election crisis.”-Trevor Potter, Former Commissioner and Chair, Federal Election Commission, and General Counsel, McCain for President, 2000 and 2008

“Hasen is a national treasure to students and practitioners of election law. His Voting Wars is a colorful, trenchant, fair-minded and powerfully-argued account of how partisanship and localism continue to haunt the administration of American elections more than a decade after Bush v. Gore and threaten yet another election meltdown.”-Thomas E. Mann, W. Averell Harriman Chair and Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution

“The Voting Wars is a spirited, and deeply disturbing, chronicle of the nonstop partisan skirmishing over voting rights, procedures, and laws that has become a pervasive presence in American politics since the disputed 2000 election. It would be difficult to read Hasen’s informed and fair-minded account and not worry about the future of American democracy.”-Alexander Keyssar, author of The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States

“Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, and one of the nation’s foremost experts on election law, has published a preview of a new book with a sobering reminder for those of us who oppose the growing body of laws requiring identification in order to vote. . . Having established a rare level of sobriety on a very fraught subject, Mr. Hasen makes it clear that he is still very much opposed to these laws.”-David Firestone, New York Times, The Loyal Opposition blog
[cid:image001.png at 01CCF861.7C2F1BC0]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30865&title=The%20Voting%20Wars%E2%80%93blurbs&description=>
Posted in The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
“Story on PhRMA 2010 contributions warning to companies of political outsourcing risks”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30862>
Posted on March 1, 2012 3:52 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30862> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Center for Public Accountability has issued this release.<http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=8pfya8n6&v=0015_lm2NH4ZFJNdPnHM7yCNjGmcm5zJSegwsQZd9Rw1jwazabBj7xDTrhbJSqVgAigbwsgOzqGUSMIl6Ash80IM8Tojs0mapMDzImiJmk-OEhYISy9Md0eZRmZ6I3ZsXaquBO7y8irNthuwhMP79vbLd1KdhfedsxK4HLqvz0NcrUhqm2kHf2HyGdQR3-pe0rCGFeFLS00R6dbhxAJ6oABTW-Ib2Br3lXVmFKloNbjSERICfjCqUnS19YCbLAypNlVwKFa1QFLySU%3D>
[cid:image001.png at 01CCF861.7C2F1BC0]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30862&title=%E2%80%9CStory%20on%20PhRMA%202010%20contributions%20warning%20to%20%20companies%20of%20political%20outsourcing%20risks%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
“Santorum camp accuses Michigan GOP of ‘political thuggery’ in awarding delegates to Romney”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30859>
Posted on March 1, 2012 3:49 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30859> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Getting ugly<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/santorum-camp-accuses-michigan-gop-of-political-thuggery-in-awarding-delegates-to-romney/2012/03/01/gIQANbj8kR_blog.html>.  And another black eye on how the Republican Party in the states (mostly caucus states) have been running their delegate selection processes.
[cid:image001.png at 01CCF861.7C2F1BC0]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30859&title=%E2%80%9CSantorum%20camp%20accuses%20Michigan%20GOP%20of%20%E2%80%98political%20thuggery%E2%80%99%20in%20awarding%20delegates%20to%20Romney%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in political parties<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, primaries<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32> | Comments Off
California Appellate Court Says Courts are Without Jurisdiction to Judge Challenges to Qualifications of Legislative Candidates<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30856>
Posted on March 1, 2012 3:38 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30856> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

I expect we will hear more about this decision<http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0312%2FC065237> in Fuller v. Bowen.  It could end up before the state Supreme Court.
[cid:image001.png at 01CCF861.7C2F1BC0]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30856&title=California%20Appellate%20Court%20Says%20Courts%20are%20Without%20Jurisdiction%20to%20Judge%20Challenges%20to%20Qualifications%20of%20Legislative%20Candidates&description=>
Posted in residency<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=38> | Comments Off
“Lessig: Campaign Donations by the Rich are ‘Legal Corruption’”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30853>
Posted on March 1, 2012 3:28 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30853> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bloomberg Law has posted this interview with Larry Lessig about campaign finance reform<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W982Sy_iSCA>.

As will be clear in my forthcoming review of Larry’s book, I have much sympathy with what he’s trying to accomplish but I’m very skeptical the problem is properly characterized<http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/18556105975/on-making-visible-the-anti-corruption-movement> as one of “corruption.”  More to come.
[cid:image001.png at 01CCF861.7C2F1BC0]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30853&title=%E2%80%9CLessig%3A%20Campaign%20Donations%20by%20the%20Rich%20are%20%E2%80%98Legal%20Corruption%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, lobbying<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28> | Comments Off
“Federal judge asks pointed questions in hearing for Florida election-law challenge”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30851>
Posted on March 1, 2012 3:24 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30851> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

News<http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20120301/CAPITOLNEWS/120301010/Federal-judge-asks-pointed-questions-hearing-Florida-election-law-challenge>from Florida: “A federal judge was openly skeptical about Florida’s new election law during a hearing today, raising repeated questions about why state legislators needed to put strict regulations and threaten stiff fines for organizations that run voter-registration drives. U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle did not indicate how he will rule on an injunction sought by the League of Women Voters, Florida Public Interest Research Group and Rock The Vote. He asked attorneys for those groups whether the new state rules for ‘third-party registration’ drives rise to the level of unconstitutional infringement on their right to participate in the political process. But Hinkle aimed his most harsh comments and questions at lawyers for the state. He said the law passed last year virtually wipes out mail-in registration by civic groups relying on volunteers, and wondered aloud what interest the state has in making volunteers sign forms indicating they know the registration rules - and having them notify the state when they start and stop collecting registration applications.”
[cid:image001.png at 01CCF861.7C2F1BC0]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30851&title=%E2%80%9CFederal%20judge%20asks%20pointed%20questions%20in%20hearing%20for%20Florida%20election-law%20challenge%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter registration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37> | Comments Off
Watch the Webcast of Today’s Brookings Event on SuperPACs<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30848>
Posted on March 1, 2012 3:21 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30848> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The video, featuring Tony Corrado, Tom Mann, and Trevor Potter is here<http://www.brookings.edu/events/2012/0301_super_pacs.aspx>.
[cid:image001.png at 01CCF861.7C2F1BC0]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30848&title=Watch%20the%20Webcast%20of%20Today%E2%80%99s%20Brookings%20Event%20on%20SuperPACs&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
The Boundary Between Campaign Contributions and Bribery: The Siegelman Case<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30835>
Posted on March 1, 2012 1:43 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30835> by Richard Pildes<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>

The cert. petition pending before the Supreme Court concerning the criminal conviction of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman raises important issues concerning whether campaign contributions can ever be treated as bribes and, if so, under what circumstances.  Rick Hasen has rightly observed <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29102> that the petition presents “important and recurring issues which have never been fully resolved about the relationship between the laws of bribery (and related offenses) and campaign contributions.”

I have now filed an amicus brief, along with my colleague Sam Issacharoff, in support of Siegelman’s cert. petition.   Here is an edited excerpt (without footnotes) from the opening Statement of that brief:

        The Petition raises important issues concerning the increasing use of vague, conflicting, and unsettled definitions of bribery in federal criminal prosecutions of  state-level political activity.  Federal anticorruption criminal prosecutions of state and local political officials have skyrocketed since the early 1980s.  Before 1980, there were never more than 200 such prosecutions in a single year, but since 1985, there have been more than 900 prosecutions in a peak year and an average of more than 600.  See Daniel H. Lowenstein, When Is a Campaign Contribution a Bribe?, in Private and Public Corruption 127, 129 tbl.6.1 (William C. Heffernan & John Kleinig eds., 2004).  Many of these federal prosecutions involve high-profile political figures, such as the prosecution of former Senator Ted Stevens, the currently pending prosecution of former Senator John Edwards, the prosecution of former Governor Donald Siegelman, or the prosecution of Richard Scruggs, one of the most prominent trial lawyers in the United States.

In a number of these cases, federal judges and others have criticized federal prosecutors for excessively ambitious zeal in their pursuit of criminal charges against high-profile public or political figures.  As is well known, United States  District Judge Emmet Sullivan cited for contempt three attorneys in the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the Stevens case for what Judge Sullivan called their “outrageous” failure to turn over to Stevens’s defense counsel certain documents.  The DOJ indictment of John Edwards for the crime of receiving illegal campaign “contributions,” for large payments two of his supporters made to Edwards’s mistress, has been strongly criticized by experts in campaign-finance law as an example of prosecutorial overreaching.  That prosecution is based on a novel and expansive interpretation of the term “contribution” to a context far removed from the way that term has traditionally been understood in the campaign-finance laws.  In many of these contexts, as in the Siegelman case, United States Attorneys that Presidents of one party have appointed initiate prosecutions of high-level political figures from the opposite party; allegations arise that the prosecutions have a partisan cast.

Given the potential vagueness of the line between campaign contributions and bribes, these allegations are not surprising.  As former professor of law and Ninth Circuit Judge John Noonan wrote in his comprehensive analysis of the issue:  “Depending on the decision of the prosecutor and the will of the judges, many contributions could be classed as bribes.”  John T. Noonan, Jr., Bribes 651 (1984).  When it comes to core democratic activities, such as the soliciting and giving of campaign contributions, that is an intolerable situation.  . . .

[V]agueness concerns continue to plague honest-services “corruption” prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 1346 despite this Court’s effort in Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010), to root out such concerns.  Federal prosecutors have responded to Skilling by replacing unconstitutionally vague honest-services fraud prosecutions of state officials and private actors, for deprivation of “intangible rights,” with vaguely defined and expansive conceptions of “quid pro quo bribery” in honest-services “bribery” prosecutions.  But if honest-services bribery convictions can rest on less than the “explicit promise” of a quid pro quo required under McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257, 273 (1991), potential defendants will confront similar vagueness concerns with respect to “bribery” prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 1346 that this Court held unconstitutional with respect to “intangible rights” prosecutions in Skilling.  Vague definitions of the quid pro quo reintroduce the same constitutional infirmity that the Court tried to stanch in Skilling.

Using expansive and loosely defined conceptions of “bribery” as an end-run around Skilling is particularly troubling when the alleged quid . . . is otherwise valuable and common political activity, such as the making of campaign contributions, the petitioning of public officials, or the endorsement of candidates for public office.  These kinds of protected political activity are often undertaken for a mix of motives, including self-interested ones.  As a result, the clarity and precision about what constitutes “bribery” under 18 U.S.C. § 1346 that is currently lacking in the lower federal courts must be provided, lest those engaged in core democratic processes be able to do so only at the sufferance of federal prosecutors.  . . . This Court’s review is needed to ensure that such activity not subject citizens to the risk of criminal prosecution at the discretion of federal prosecutors invoking uncertain and imprecisely defined conceptions of honest-services “bribery” under 18 U.S.C. § 1346.

When a copy of the brief is available online, I will post a link for those interested.
[cid:image001.png at 01CCF861.7C2F1BC0]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30835&title=The%20Boundary%20Between%20Campaign%20Contributions%20and%20Bribery%3A%20%20The%20Siegelman%20Case&description=>
Posted in bribery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>, campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
Bagenstos Responds to Oremus Slate Piece on Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30832>
Posted on March 1, 2012 10:02 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30832> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Sam Bagenstos<http://web.law.umich.edu/_facultybiopage/facultybiopagenew.asp?ID=411> sent the following message to the Election Law Listserv, which I am reposting here with permission:

Will Oremus’s piece<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/03/voting_rights_act_is_obama_letting_the_civil_rights_law_die_before_the_supreme_court_kills_it_.single.html#pagebreak_anchor_2> is long on rhetoric and short on argument.  He writes that the Department of Justice has taken a “laissez-faire approach” to Section 5 preclearance, that it’s “no longer willing to defend a robust interpretation of the law,” that it’s “letting [Section 5] waste away,” and that it has “forfeited” presumably important “battles.”  But what’s the evidence?  That the Department precleared redistrictings in Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Virginia.  Nowhere in Oremus’s piece, though, do we see any argument that these redistrictings actually violated Section 5 - that is, that they were adopted with a discriminatory purpose or had a retrogressive effect.  All we see in the piece is that these redistrictings were harmful to the interests of the Democratic Party, and that certain activists of that party seem to have expected that, with the Department of Justice headed by Democratic appointees, the Department could be counted on to serve the party’s interests.  But that’s not what Section 5 is supposed to be about.  It’s supposed to be about protecting against a certain kind of racial discrimination - not protecting the interests of the party that runs the federal executive branch, even if that is the party with which most minority group members affiliate.
 Absent a case that the precleared redistrictings actually violated Section 5 - a case Oremus never makes - Oremus’s statements that the Department is letting Section 5 “waste away” by “forfeit[ing]” key battles (etc.) have no basis.  I know that, among a certain crowd of people who consider themselves to be in the know, a conventional wisdom has developed that: (a) the Supreme Court is going to invalidate Section 5 the next time the case comes before them raising the question; and (b) the Department of Justice is (and perhaps should be) anticipating this by declining to enforce Section 5 robustly.  I will just say that none of us has any way of knowing whether (a) is correct.  All we know is that the Supreme Court didn’t decide the question in Northwest Austin.  Lots of people have gone wrong in the past by overreading “signals” from Supreme Court decisions that didn’t actually decide questions.  Lots of folks, for example, thought the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Hopwood accurately read the Supreme Court’s signals in Adarand, though Grutter shows that prediction was wrong (notwithstanding what a new Court might do today in Fisher).  As for (b), I don’t think the case has been made.  Why would the Department object to the South Carolina voter ID law if it wanted to avoid testing Section 5′s constitutionality?  In fact, I recall a number of folks (including Rick Hasen writing in Slate) saying that the decision to object in that case was reckless precisely because it set up a constitutional test in the highly contentious context of voter ID laws.
I think the real story in Oremus’s piece is not that the Department of Justice is afraid to use Section 5, but that the Holder Department of Justice has applied the law fairly, even where doing so has not served the interests of the Democratic Party.  Not as sexy a story as the one Oremus wanted to tell, perhaps, but an important one nonetheless.
[cid:image001.png at 01CCF861.7C2F1BC0]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30832&title=Bagenstos%20Responds%20to%20Oremus%20Slate%20Piece%20on%20Voting%20Rights%20Act&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
“Attacks on Media Coverage of Citizens United’s Pivotal Role in Rise of Super PACs Are Misguided and Wrong”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30830>
Posted on March 1, 2012 10:00 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30830> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Fred Wertheimer writes<http://www.democracy21.org/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC=%7B91FCB139-CC82-4DDD-AE4E-3A81E6427C7F%7D&DE=%7BED5C70B8-1FCD-4ED0-B7B5-9171AE12C2BC%7D>.
[cid:image001.png at 01CCF861.7C2F1BC0]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30830&title=%E2%80%9CAttacks%20on%20Media%20Coverage%20of%20Citizens%20United%E2%80%99s%20Pivotal%20Role%20in%20Rise%20of%20Super%20PACs%20Are%20Misguided%20and%20Wrong%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
“The Presidential Primary System: How Well Does it Serve American Democracy?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30828>
Posted on March 1, 2012 9:59 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30828> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Bipartisan Policy Center will hold this event<http://bipartisanpolicy.org/events/2012/03/presidential-primary-system-how-well-does-it-serve-american-democracy> with Jay Cost, John Fortier, Curtis Gans, and David Norcross on March 8.
[cid:image001.png at 01CCF861.7C2F1BC0]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30828&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Presidential%20Primary%20System%3A%20How%20Well%20Does%20it%20Serve%20American%20Democracy%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in political parties<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, primaries<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32> | Comments Off
“Campaign Finance Reform Panel with Jack Abramoff “<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30826>
Posted on March 1, 2012 9:57 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30826> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

“Former Lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Campaign Finance Reform Leaders to
Discuss How to Fix Washington” at National Press Club March 5<http://press.org/events/finance-reform-panel-jack-abramoff> at 7 pm.
[cid:image001.png at 01CCF861.7C2F1BC0]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30826&title=%E2%80%9CCampaign%20Finance%20Reform%20Panel%20with%20Jack%20Abramoff%20%E2%80%9C&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, legislation and legislatures<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>, lobbying<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28> | Comments Off
“Voter registration cards provide info, but are they necessary?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30824>
Posted on March 1, 2012 9:55 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30824> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

That’s the lead story in this week’s Electionline Weekly<http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly>.
[cid:image001.png at 01CCF861.7C2F1BC0]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30824&title=%E2%80%9CVoter%20registration%20cards%20provide%20info%2C%20but%20are%20they%20necessary%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, voter registration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37> | Comments Off
Minority Voices Split Over Whether Interim Texas Redistricting Maps Are Good for Minorities<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30821>
Posted on March 1, 2012 9:07 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30821> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Here<http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/guest-column-texas-congressional-map-minority-voters/?utm_source=texastribune.org&utm_medium=alerts&utm_campaign=News%20Alert:%20Subscriptions>, at the Texas Tribune.  From one of the three, written by Rep. Dukes:

I understand that the court’s plan is based on a plan that MALDEF, the Latino Task force and U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo, proposed along with the state of Texas. Undoubtedly, these plaintiffs believe that their agreed-to plan is fair to minority voters.

The Texas Legislative Black Caucus, NAACP, LULAC and I disagree. We feel that the congressional plan should protect the voting rights of all minority voters, not just a limited subset - especially when the agreed-to plan (and the court’s plan) continues to harm Hispanic and black voters in several parts of the state.
[cid:image001.png at 01CCF861.7C2F1BC0]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30821&title=Minority%20Voices%20Split%20Over%20Whether%20Interim%20Texas%20Redistricting%20Maps%20Are%20Good%20for%20Minorities&description=>
Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
What’s Wrong With Washington, Continued<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30818>
Posted on March 1, 2012 8:30 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30818> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

If Senator Snowe moves to K street, she could make<http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/213503-retiring-sen-snowe-would-be-near-top-of-k-street-wish-list-insiders-say> $1 million per year as a lobbyist.  As I explain<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1734428>, the revolving door is one of the most dangerous aspects of Washington lobbying.

I’ll have more to say about lobbying, corruption, and the revolving door soon, when I post a draft of my book review of Larry Lessig’<http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress/dp/0446576433>s and Jack Abramoff<http://www.amazon.com/Capitol-Punishment-Washington-Corruption-Notorious/dp/1936488442/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330619366&sr=1-1>‘s books.
[cid:image001.png at 01CCF861.7C2F1BC0]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30818&title=What%E2%80%99s%20Wrong%20With%20Washington%2C%20Continued&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, conflict of interest laws<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>, legislation and legislatures<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>, lobbying<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28> | 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 92697-8000
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://electionlawblog.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120302/88d7ee28/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120302/88d7ee28/attachment.png>