[EL] Evidentiary differences in voter ID and campaign finance law

Tue Mar 27 11:46:16 PDT 2012

I agree with you that Dan has proposed an intellectually honest approach and his proposed mechanism is much more logical and far less subjective than the current doctrine, even though I would ultimately disagree that a “conflict of interest” standard is sufficient to limit political activity.  However, no court that I’m aware of has adopted it and many of those in the campaign finance reform movement seem very supportive of the “appearance of corruption” argument and its even less enlightening cousin, the “everybody knows” argument.  I’ve yet to hear a defense of those approaches and an explanation of why, assuming they are proper basis for regulating campaign finances, they are not also suitable for voter ID.

Bill

From: Rick Hasen [mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 10:21 AM
To: Bill Maurer
Cc: Mathew Manweller; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Evidentiary differences in voter ID and campaign finance law

I have never liked appearance arguments, whether in voter id, racial gerrymandering, or campaign finance. Over the years I have become less and less convinced about the appearance of corruption argument in campaign finance law, especially after the work of Persily and Lammie looking at public opinion and campaign finance, and believe the issue is better conceptualized as Dan Lowenstein has under conflict of interest standards.
I made that point recently here<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74336.html>:
Even if this is not proof of “corruption” in Kennedy’s terms, it is proof of something closely related which should count as much. The Supreme Court has recognized “appearance of corruption” as an alternative basis for limiting campaign finance laws.

This alternative basis has always left me a bit squeamish—laws should be justified based on actual effects, not appearances. But a better way of conceptualizing this issue was described many years ago <http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/hoflr18&div=15&id=&page=> by Daniel Lowenstein, a law professor at University of California, Los Angeles. The problem, Lowenstein wrote, is not an appearance of corruption, but an actuality of a conflict of interest.

The money chase, now with unlimited outside money, creates too many unavoidable conflicts for lawmakers. Lawmakers worried about millions spent against them will bend to either please those outside groups or to curry favor with other groups to fight back. Outside money should be limited to prevent this pervasive conflict of interest which arises between the interests of the big spenders and the public interest

On 3/27/2012 10:09 AM, Bill Maurer wrote:
I had a similar question and I’m not trying to be clever, but it seems to me that there is a significant disconnect among progressives regarding the level of evidence needed to show the existence of a problem that requires government intervention in the campaign finance and voter ID arenas.  In the campaign finance side, we often get the “everybody knows” argument of the corrupting influence of money in elections unaccompanied by any real evidence of quid pro quo corruption.  Indeed, campaign finance laws can be justified by the “appearance of corruption,” meaning that nobody is breaking any laws and nothing bad is happening, but whatever is happening makes David Souter or Steven Breyer unhappy so the government gets to regulate and restrict the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights.  On the voter ID side, many of the same voices demand actual physical proof of fraud before any regulations or restrictions can even be contemplated.  Why the difference?  Why can’t voter ID proponents simply say “everybody knows” there’s fraud based on what they’ve heard and, even if there isn’t, there’s the “appearance of fraud” that causes people to lose confidence in their government, so you have to produce a driver’s license if you’re going to vote?

I say this as someone who has no dog in the fight regarding voter ID one way or the other.  I don’t litigate in the area and my firm doesn’t take a position on it.  I’m simply curious as to why one set of government restrictions on an important right demands metaphysical certainty and another set need only be justified by references to general knowledge with no evidence and subjective determinations of the “appearance” of things that don’t comport with reality.

Bill

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 9:43 AM
To: Mathew Manweller
Cc: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] More ID arguments

Most of my objections to voter identification laws are not constitutional objections but policy objections--directed to the political branches and the public.  The current cases raising the issue of a disparate racial impact of voter i.d. laws on minority voters raise issues under the Voting Rights Act, not the Constitution.

I know virtually nothing about Second Amendment jurisprudence and do not feel confident opining on that constitutional issue.  Of course, the Voting Rights Act does not protect against disparate effect in the purchase of guns.

Rick

On 3/27/2012 9:35 AM, Mathew Manweller wrote:
Rick,

I have been following your numerous posts about your objections to voter ID laws. I have a (somewhat) hypothetical for you that I would be interested in your response.

The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun (or at least under the Heller and McDonald decisions). This guarantee is actually more direct than the "right to vote" which doesn't actually exist--only the right not to have your vote denied on a few basis (race, gender, age, etc).

So, are laws that require that one show an ID before they can purchase a gun also subject to attack because they would disproportionately fall on minority groups? It seems all the same arguments would apply.

Regards,

Matt Manweller

Central Washington University
Assoc. Professor of Political Science
manwellerm at cwu.edu<mailto:manwellerm at cwu.edu>
509-963-2396 >>> Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu> 3/27/2012 8:06 AM >>>
“Why Do Liberals Fear Discussing the Truth of Voter ID?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32257>
Posted on March 27, 2012 8:02 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32257> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Michael Thielen digs himself <http://rnla.org/blogs/blogs/public/archive/2012/03/27/why-do-liberals-fear-discussing-the-truth-of-voter-id.aspx> deeper into a hole. The released chapter<http://www.amazon.com/Fraudulent-Fraud-Squad-Understanding-ebook/dp/B00795X5XI/ref=zg_bs_157417011_9> of my forthcoming book<http://www.amazon.com/The-Voting-Wars-Election-Meltdown/dp/0300182031> discusses the best academic studies available on voter i.d.  The simple reason my book does not cite any evidence from the Carter-Baker commission is its age: it predates the Indiana voter i.d. law (the first of the stricter voter id laws implemented).  Instead, I focus on the actual empirical work on voter id, including important work by Pitts, Erikson and Minnite, and Ansolabehere and Persily.  There is no original empirical research in the Carter-Baker report: only (unsubstantiated) claims about voter confidence, claims which Ansolabehere and Persily tested in an article published later in the Harvard Law Review.

The truth?

Virtually no evidence<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32188> that voter i.d. laws prevent the kind of fraud (in person, impersonation voter fraud) which is a serious threat in American elections.

No evidence of a link between voter i.d. laws and voter confidence.

The chapter explains these points in detail.  I have yet to see good empirical evidence refuting either of these two points.  Certainly nothing in Carter-Baker does.

And, for the record, I have come out before<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=698201> and in the last chapter of the book I will come out again in favor of a national voter identification card, with all the costs paid for by the government, and registration conducted by the government (not third party groups) and the optional use of a thumbprint instead of the voter identification card for voters who choose to use it.  This would be part of a package of fundamental reforms to make our election system more uniform, efficient, and fair.

[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32257&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20Do%20Liberals%20Fear%20Discussing%20the%20Truth%20of%20Voter%20ID%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, fraudulent fraud squad<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9> | Comments Off
“Two SEC Commissioners Could Dramatically Change Campaign Finance”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32254>
Posted on March 27, 2012 7:50 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32254> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Nation reports<http://www.thenation.com/blog/167044/two-sec-commissioners-could-dramatically-change-campaign-finance>.
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32254&title=%E2%80%9CTwo%20SEC%20Commissioners%20Could%20Dramatically%20Change%20Campaign%20Finance%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
“Karl Rove’s fight club”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32251>
Posted on March 27, 2012 7:46 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32251> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Politico<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74506.html>: “A coalition that helped Republicans retake the House majority in 2010 is back and plotting even bigger plans in 2012, with more money, more players — and more problems. The top conservative operatives who make up the alliance were scheduled to huddle this week behind closed doors to discuss how to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to attack President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats. And participants were reminded in an email <http://images.politico.com/global/2012/03/120323_weaver_collegio_email.html> that the gathering shares a key rule with Fight Club: no talking about it.”
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32251&title=%E2%80%9CKarl%20Rove%E2%80%99s%20fight%20club%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
“Romney’s fundraisers are quietly amassing millions”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32248>
Posted on March 27, 2012 7:43 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32248> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

AP does the work<http://online.wsj.com/article/AP6d7a29f18c184dad9bada26cc06d6291.html> to find some of Romney’s bundlers—bundlers he won’t disclose. (George W. Bush, John McCain, and Barack Obama all disclosed their donors.)
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32248&title=%E2%80%9CRomney%E2%80%99s%20fundraisers%20are%20quietly%20amassing%20millions%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
Quote of the Day<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32245>
Posted on March 27, 2012 7:39 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32245> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

“Under existing case law this is a very easy case; this is obviously constitutional. I think he’s going to lose eight to one.”

—Doug Laycock, quoted in a NYT profile<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/us/randy-barnetts-pet-cause-end-of-health-law-hits-supreme-court.html?_r=1> of Randy Barnett, intellectual architect of the health care challenge.
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32245&title=Quote%20of%20the%20Day&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments Off
” “Nobody Goes There Anymore, It’s Too Crowded”: Election Officials’ Responsibility for Handling Denial of Service Attacks”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32243>
Posted on March 27, 2012 7:38 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32243> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

A ChapinBlog<http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/electionacademy/2012/03/nobody_goes_there_anymore_its.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HHHElections+%28The+Election+Aacdemy%29>.
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32243&title=%E2%80%9D%20%E2%80%9CNobody%20Goes%20There%20Anymore%2C%20It%E2%80%99s%20Too%20Crowded%E2%80%9D%3A%20Election%20Officials%E2%80%99%20Responsibility%20for%20Handling%20Denial%20of%20Service%20Attack>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, voting technology<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40> | Comments Off
“Pro-Romney PAC Killing Machine With Attack Ads”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32240>
Posted on March 27, 2012 7:34 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32240> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bloomberg reports<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-27/pro-romney-pac-killing-machine-with-attack-ads.html>.
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32240&title=%E2%80%9CPro-Romney%20PAC%20Killing%20Machine%20With%20Attack%20Ads%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
Blockbuster Quote of the Day<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32236>
Posted on March 26, 2012 8:47 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32236> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

“The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks—two key Democratic constituencies.”

—From the National Organization for Marriage confidential strategy memo<http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/in-secret-documents-anti-gay-marriage-group-plott>, circulated by Human Rights Campaign and discussed at BuzzFeed<http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/in-secret-documents-anti-gay-marriage-group-plott>.
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32236&title=Blockbuster%20Quote%20of%20the%20Day&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments Off
“Former Rep. William Jefferson’s conviction upheld by appeals panel”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32234>
Posted on March 26, 2012 8:46 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32234> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NOLA reports <http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/03/former_rep_william_jeffersons_1.html> on this ruling <http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/095130.P.pdf> of the Fourth Circuit.  Among other things, the opinion has a long discussion of the “official act” requirement in the federal bribery statute.
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32234&title=%E2%80%9CFormer%20Rep.%20William%20Jefferson%E2%80%99s%20conviction%20upheld%20by%20appeals%20panel%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in bribery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12> | Comments Off
“Senate Rules Panel Hearing Expected To Focus on Disclosure Policy Debate”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32231>
Posted on March 26, 2012 8:30 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32231> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bloomberg BNA reports<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=25713933&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0d1g0p5h8&split=0>.
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32231&title=%E2%80%9CSenate%20Rules%20Panel%20Hearing%20Expected%20To%20Focus%20on%20Disclosure%20Policy%20Debate%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
Another Court Holds as Constitutional Ban on Corporate Campaign Contribution Limits<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32226>
Posted on March 26, 2012 5:20 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32226> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Plus lots more interesting stuff in this opinion<http://politicalpractices.mt.gov/content/UnitedStatesDistrictCourtOrderonInjunctionforATP> on a preliminary injunction in the federal suit challenging Montana’s campaign finance laws.  Thanks to Robbin Stewart for the link.
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32226&title=Another%20Court%20Holds%20as%20Constitutional%20Ban%20on%20Corporate%20Campaign%20Contribution%20Limits&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
“DOJ Follows Its ‘Conscience’ In Civil Rights Battles”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32222>
Posted on March 26, 2012 5:01 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32222> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Must-listen<http://www.npr.org/2012/03/26/149397195/doj-follows-its-conscience-in-civil-rights-battles?sc=tw> Carrie Johnson interview with Tom Perez on NPR: “Over the past three years, the unit has brought record numbers of hate crimes cases, uncovered abuses in local police departments<http://www.npr.org/2011/12/15/143765355/probe-finds-arizona-sheriff-violated-civil-rights> and challenged voting laws in Texas<http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/03/12/148452296/texas-voter-id-law-blocked-by-justice-department> and South Carolina<http://www.npr.org/2011/12/23/144202857/justice-department-blocks-new-s-c-voting-id-law>. ‘I wish discrimination were a thing of the past,’ says Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division. ‘I wish we were living in a post-racial America. I wish my phone were not ringing, but regrettably it’s ringing off the hook in the voting context; it’s ringing off the hook in the hate crimes context and in so many other contexts.’”
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32222&title=%E2%80%9CDOJ%20Follows%20Its%20%E2%80%98Conscience%E2%80%99%20In%20Civil%20Rights%20Battles%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Department of Justice<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
“Wisconsin: Union group running ads for Falk provokes questions”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32219>
Posted on March 26, 2012 4:35 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32219> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

See here<http://recallelections.blogspot.com/2012/03/wisconsin-union-group-running-ads-for.html>.
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32219&title=%E2%80%9CWisconsin%3A%20Union%20group%20running%20ads%20for%20Falk%20provokes%20questions%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, recall elections<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=11> | Comments Off
“The Future of Red and Blue: How Changing Party Demographics Will Impact the 2012 Election and Beyond”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32216>
Posted on March 26, 2012 1:56 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32216> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Bipartisan Policy Center will host this event <http://view.bipartisanpolicycenteremail.org/?j=fe5f17797165007c7c15&m=fef21c747c6107&ls=fdf0117873660d78751d7274&l=ff2f16737260&s=fe241d727167047b721276&jb=ffcf14&ju=fe3310727660047b751273&r=0> on April 11.
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32216&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Future%20of%20Red%20and%20Blue%3A%20How%20Changing%20Party%20Demographics%20Will%20Impact%20the%202012%20Election%20and%20Beyond%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments Off
“Minnesota’s War on Voting”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32214>
Posted on March 26, 2012 1:55 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32214> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Ari Berman writes<http://www.thenation.com/blog/167042/minnesotas-war-voting> for The Nation.
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32214&title=%E2%80%9CMinnesota%E2%80%99s%20War%20on%20Voting%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9> | Comments Off
Witnesses Announced for Senate Rules Committee Hearing on DISCLOSE Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32211>
Posted on March 26, 2012 1:53 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32211> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Via the hearing notice<http://www.rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=CommitteeHearings&ContentRecord_id=977aba5d-2591-4386-af09-541cfbeaaafc&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=1983a2a8-4fc3-4062-a50e-7997351c154b&MonthDisplay=3&YearDisplay=2012>:

  *   Mr. Fred Wertheimer
Founder and President
Democracy 21
  *   Mr. David Keating
President
Center for Competitive Politics
  *   Professor Richard L. Hasen
Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science
UC-Irvine School of Law
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32211&title=Witnesses%20Announced%20for%20Senate%20Rules%20Committee%20Hearing%20on%20DISCLOSE%20Act&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
“FEC Reminded it has No Authority to Strike Down Contribution Limits in Filing by Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21″<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32208>
Posted on March 26, 2012 1:33 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32208> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

See here<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1662:march-26-2012-fec-reminded-it-has-no-authority-to-strike-down-contribution-limits-in-filing-by-campaign-legal-center-and-democracy-21-&catid=63:legal-center-press-releases&Itemid=61>.
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32208&title=%E2%80%9CFEC%20Reminded%20it%20has%20No%20Authority%20to%20Strike%20Down%20Contribution%20Limits%20in%20Filing%20by%20Campaign%20Legal%20Center%20and%20Democracy%2021%E2%80%B3&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
“Could Connecticut Be the First to Get Serious About Shareholders Rights Post-Citizens United?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32205>
Posted on March 26, 2012 1:02 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32205> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy has this post<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/ciara-torresspelliscy/could-connecticut-be-the-_b_1378797.html> at the Huffington Post.  See also this testimony<http://www.law.stetson.edu/faculty/torres-spelliscy-ciara/media/Ciara%20Torres-Spelliscy%20Testimony%20for%20Connecticut%20Mar%2026%202012.pdf> submitted to the Connecticut Legislature.
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32205&title=%E2%80%9CCould%20Connecticut%20Be%20the%20First%20to%20Get%20Serious%20About%20Shareholders%20Rights%20Post-Citizens%20United%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
“New State Voter ID Laws Could Determine 2012 Election”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32203>
Posted on March 26, 2012 1:01 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32203> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Via You Tube<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTEJCBpF3o4&feature=youtu.be>, “Tova Andrea Wang, Senior Democracy Fellow at Demos, and Ben Adler, writer at The Nation, talk to Bloomberg Law’s Lee Pacchia about recently enacted laws in numerous states around the country that require voters to present identification at election polls.”
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32203&title=%E2%80%9CNew%20State%20Voter%20ID%20Laws%20Could%20Determine%202012%20Election%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9> | Comments Off
“Mitt Romney is not as weak as you think”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32200>
Posted on March 26, 2012 12:21 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32200> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

MacLean<http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/03/26/mitt-romneys-all-right/>s on the new primary rules.
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32200&title=%E2%80%9CMitt%20Romney%20is%20not%20as%20weak%20as%20you%20think%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in political parties<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, primaries<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32> | Comments Off
“Americans Elect waiting for big name as they seek to break two-party grip”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32195>
Posted on March 26, 2012 12:18 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32195> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Guardian offers this report<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/26/americans-elect-two-party-system>, with the subhead: “Group says their plan to take on America’s two-party system is on track – but a lack of engagement is hampering their cause.”
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32195&title=%E2%80%9CAmericans%20Elect%20waiting%20for%20big%20name%20as%20they%20seek%20to%20break%20two-party%20grip%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in ballot access<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>, third parties<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=47> | Comments Off
The NY Times Inadvertently Clarifies That Its Real Problem is with Buckley v. Valeo, Not Citizens United<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32191>
Posted on March 26, 2012 12:18 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32191> by Richard Pildes<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>

Under the broad heading of Living in a Citizens United World, the NY Times has a longer-than-usual editorial entitled “When Other Voices Are Drowned Out.”  The key sentence is this:  “But when outside spending is unlimited, and political speech depends heavily on access to costly technology and ads, the wealthy can distort this fundamental element of democracy by drowning out those who lack financial resources.”

The Times’s reasoning confirms a point I have made several times, including here<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28974> and here<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25207>, on this blog:  those, like the Times, who are concerned that “the wealthy” can “distort” democracy by “drowning out” those with fewer resources need to understand that their complaint lies with the Court’s decision in Buckley v. Valeo, not the more recent Citizens United decision.  The most famous and most cited passage in all of campaign-finance law, from Buckley, is the following:

But the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment, which was designed “to secure ‘the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources,’” and “‘to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.’” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra at 266, 269, quoting Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20 (1945), and Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. at 484. The First Amendment’s protection against governmental abridgment of free expression cannot properly be made to depend on a person’s financial ability to engage in public discussion. Cf. Eastern R. Conf. v. Noerr Motors,365 U.S. 127, 13 (1961).

It is this reasoning from Buckley that directly holds unconstitutional precisely the position that the Times editorial today advocates.  Those who hold the view the Times does need to understand that their real complaint is with Buckley.  Put another way, if Citizens United were overruled tomorrow, the problem that concerns the Times would remain essentially the same.  The Times editorial should really be titled Living in a Buckley v. Valeo World.
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32191&title=The%20NY%20Times%20Inadvertently%20Clarifies%20That%20Its%20Real%20Problem%20is%20with%20Buckley%20v.%20Valeo%2C%20Not%20Citizens%20United&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments Off
On Voter Impersonation for Voter ID, Evidence Even Less than Think Progress Says<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32188>
Posted on March 26, 2012 10:11 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32188> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Think Progress has a new post entitled: Texas Had ‘Fewer Than Five’ Voter Impersonation Cases Over Three Years<http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/26/451586/texas-fewer-than-five-voter-impersonation-cases/>.  But that headline implies that at least one of these cases had merit.  But there were only five complaints, and some or maybe even all such complaints are without merit.  Think of those “dead” South Carolina voters.<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31519>

The <http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Cheating-rarely-seen-at-polls-3432801.php> San Antonio Express-News<http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Cheating-rarely-seen-at-polls-3432801.php>, reported that: “The Texas attorney general’s office did not give the outcome of the four illegal voting complaints that were filed. Only one remains pending, according to agency records.”

Better headline, at least until the AG’s office releases more info:  Texas Had Perhaps ZERO Voter Impersonation Cases Over Three Years.
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32188&title=On%20Voter%20Impersonation%20for%20Voter%20ID%2C%20Evidence%20Even%20Less%20than%20Think%20Progress%20Says&description=>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, fraudulent fraud squad<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, 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
--
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

--
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

--
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/20120327/07ec59b2/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/20120327/07ec59b2/attachment.png>