[EL] still more news 11/9/12
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Fri Nov 9 15:56:07 PST 2012
Lighter Blogging Next Week <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=44011>
Posted on November 9, 2012 3:52 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=44011>
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Thursday I travel to the great GW election law conference
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=41878> taking place on Friday.
The election put me behind on lots of things.
So I hope to slow down a bit on the blogging and recharge the batteries
a little.
But first I'm scheduled to be on CNN tomorrow morning at 10:15 am eastern.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D44011&title=Lighter%20Blogging%20Next%20Week&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments Off
Brad Smith and Heather Gerken Talk Money in Politics
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=44008>
Posted on November 9, 2012 3:46 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=44008>
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
On Bloggingheads <http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/12538>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D44008&title=Brad%20Smith%20and%20Heather%20Gerken%20Talk%20Money%20in%20Politics&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
Comments Off
"Mitt Romney's ORCA program couldn't stay afloat"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=44005>
Posted on November 9, 2012 3:43 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=44005>
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politico reports
<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83653.html?hp=f1>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D44005&title=%E2%80%9CMitt%20Romney%E2%80%99s%20ORCA%20program%20couldn%E2%80%99t%20stay%20afloat%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59> | Comments Off
"The 2nd Richest County in the Country 'Can't' Find Enough Qualified
Poll Workers" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=44002>
Posted on November 9, 2012 3:29 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=44002>
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Empty Wheel
<http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/11/09/the-2nd-richest-county-in-the-country-cant-find-enough-qualified-poll-workers/>:
'Or perhaps this is the reason why: the Vice Chair of Fairfax's Board of
Elections <http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/elections/electoral-board.htm>
is Hans von Spakovsky, the architect
<http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/10/29/121029fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all>
of GOP efforts to suppress the vote. And so it is that one of the most
affluent, best educated counties on earth claims to be unable to find
people capable of running polling machines."
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D44002&title=%E2%80%9CThe%202nd%20Richest%20County%20in%20the%20Country%20%E2%80%98Can%E2%80%99t%E2%80%99%20Find%20Enough%20Qualified%20Poll%20Workers%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,
The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
The Court and the Constitutionality of Section 5 of the VRA
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=43961>
Posted on November 9, 2012 3:18 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=43961>
by Richard Pildes <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>
A couple months ago, the SCOTUS blog ran a Symposium on the
constitutional issues concerning Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. In
light of today's Supreme Court decision to address those issues in the
/Shelby County/ case, here's an excerpt from my contribution to that
Symposium (the full contribution is here
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/09/online-vra-symposium-the-supreme-court-response-to-congressional-avoidance/>,
the full Symposium here
<http://www.scotusblog.com/category/special-features/the-court-and-the-voting-rights-act/>):
Congress has put the Supreme Court in an excruciatingly difficult
position. The parts of the country the VRA singles out today for
Section 5's unique regime of federal receivership remain essentially
unchanged since 1965 (when most of the covered jurisdictions were
brought in) and 1975 (when those with certain language minorities
were added). In 2006, when Congress adopted the current version of
Section 5, nearly twenty-five years had passed since Congress had
last re-visited Section 5; many VRA experts assumed Congress would
inevitably update the Act in one way or another --- particularly its
geographic scope --- to reflect the demographic, social, legal, and
political changes that had taken place since 1982, let alone since
1965. But Congress avoided the provocative and difficult questions
these changes unleashed. As Section 5 emerged in 2006, its
geographically selective targeting remained unchanged -- neither
expanded, contracted, nor modified in any way from the contours
Section 5 had developed in the 1960s and 70s. In addition, Congress
locked that structure into place for another twenty-five years, as
long as any extension of Section 5 in the Act's history. Until 2031,
then, the parts of the country put in the 1960s and 70s under the
only geographically selective regime of federal receivership in
American history will remain there. Thus Congress forced onto the
Court's agenda the question: is there a constitutionally sufficient
foundation to justify singling out today (and until 2031) the exact
same areas, and only those areas, initially and properly singled out
some forty or so years ago?
. . .
When I testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2006
<http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/senatejudicvraopening.pdf>,
I was concerned that the evidence in the legislative record did not
adequately address whether there continued to be "systematic
differences between the covered and the non-covered areas of the
United States [,] . . . and, in fact, the evidence that is in the
record suggests that there is more similarity than difference."
Congress simply did not seem interested in this question or wanted
to avoid it. The legislative process had been designed as if
Congress's only constitutional (and policy) obligation were to
establish that race-related problems concerning voting rights
continued to exist within parts of the already-covered areas --
regardless whether similar problems were occurring at similar rates
in other parts of the country. Instead, to be on the safe side of
modern constitutional doctrine, which had changed dramatically since
Congress had last re-visited Section 5 in 1982, I urged Congress to
assess where voting problems were occurring today and tailor Section
5 accordingly. In NAMUDNO¸ the Supreme Court quoted this testimony
and concluded that "difficult constitutional questions" existed
concerning whether contemporary circumstances justified the current
scope of Section 5. Implicitly, the Court gave Congress a second
chance to tackle the issues it had avoided. To no one's surprise,
Congress once again preferred to do nothing and leave the status quo
intact --- thus effectively putting the burden back on the Court.
At least three different possibilities exist concerning the
foundation constitutional doctrine might require to justify today's
Section 5. Commentary often does not distinguish between these
three: (1) taking the covered jurisdictions in isolation, Congress
might only have to show that voting problems continue to exist in
those areas; (2) taking the covered jurisdictions in the aggregate
and comparing them to the non-covered ones, Congress might only have
to show significant continuing differences between "the covered" and
the "non-covered" areas; (3) taking the covered jurisdictions one by
one, Congress might have to show that significantly different
problems plague particular jurisdictions to justify their continued
inclusion (at least at the state level, as a first cut at requiring
close tailoring between Section 5's coverage and contemporary
circumstances).
Congress implicitly legislated on the assumption that (1) defined
its constitutional obligations, but NAMUDNO appears to signal that
the Court is not going to accept that approach. If so, the critical
question will be the choice the Court makes between theories (2) and
(3) --- and how strong the evidence is to support the approach the
Court adopts. Put more concretely, the question is whether, if
unique voting-rights problems continue to infect Alabama,
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas (if recent three-judge court
decisions involving Texas are upheld) but not Virginia, North
Carolina, and Georgia, for example, is that sufficient to uphold the
constitutionality of Section 5, as (2) would suggest? Or can
Congress apply Section 5 only in the former states -- if these are
the only places where these actual problems distinctively exist, as
(3) would require?
. . .
As I have chronicled elsewhere, realpolitik provides the best
explanation for why Congress left Section 5's essential structure
and coverage unchanged. To try to update Section 5's coverage would
have opened up too many charged questions about where the
interaction of race and electoral politics had improved in the
country, remained the same, or gotten worse. The question is whether
realpolitik will be an adequate justification to a Supreme Court
majority that cannot relish the headline, "Supreme Court Holds
Voting Rights Act Unconstitutional," but that has already expressed
serious reservations about a Section 5 that extends to 2031 a
geographically-selective regime whose targeting remains unchanged
since the 1960s and 70s.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D43961&title=The%20Court%20and%20the%20Constitutionality%20of%20Section%205%20of%20the%20VRA&description=>
Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> |
Comments Off
VRA SCOTUS Grant Early Roundup <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=43996>
Posted on November 9, 2012 3:14 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=43996>
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Howard' <http://howappealing.law.com/110912.html#047804>s got it.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D43996&title=VRA%20SCOTUS%20Grant%20Early%20Roundup&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
"Improved Absentee Balloting Processes Essential to the 'Fix'"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=43992>
Posted on November 9, 2012 3:10 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=43992>
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here is a guest post from Susan Dzieduszycka-Suinat, President and CEO*,
*U.S. Vote Foundation and Overseas Vote Foundation*:*
There is no single "fix" to create a more accessible and functional
system that would transform the chaos that occurred on Election Day
2012. For too many, voting is a marathon event requiring
perseverance and stamina, which often leads to low voter turnout. In
this environment, it is hard to conceive of growing the American
electorate without implementing new and innovative approaches to the
voting process. One solution is a rigorous, reliable, high-integrity
absentee balloting system. Indeed, this must be part of the improved
foundation of our voting system across all states.
We saw absentee voting explode in popularity in the 2012 election,
but it was still a fraction of what it could be to our growing
electorate. Given this rise in demand, absentee balloting systems
warrant dramatic investment.
The good news is the US already has a decent working absentee ballot
model, as well as considerable policy and administrative experience
concerning this voting method: the overseas and military absentee
voting model. Decades of torturous policy implementation in the area
of overseas and military voting have come to fruition in recent
years. These groundbreaking policies have transformed the military
and overseas voting experience and fostered technological
improvements that are ripe for application in the domestic absentee
balloting realm.
For example every state presently uses a single form that functions
as a simultaneous voter registration and absentee ballot request for
overseas and military voters. Why not implement this same type of
standardized application as an alternative for simultaneous domestic
voter registration and absentee ballot request across all states?
Why do US domestic absentee voters have to fill out /two/ forms, go
through /two/ application processes in order to get registered and
receive an absentee ballot, while our overseas citizens and military
voters can apply just once? Such a simple move would streamline the
process dramatically for domestic voters and election administrators
alike. This procedure should be adopted immediately. Further, the
technology for enabling domestic voters to complete ballot request
forms online also exists, is low cost, customizable and easily
available.
Integral to the overseas and military absentee voting system is an
emergency Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot (FWAB) that is accepted
as an absentee ballot across all states. Currently the official FWAB
is available to any overseas or military voter whose expected
absentee ballot doesn't arrive. Fully half of the states accept the
FWAB as a simultaneous voter registration, absentee ballot request,
and voted ballot. This creates a one-step voting process that
streamlines procedures. Voters need only go online to access the
FWAB, and will even be presented with state-specific federal
candidate lists.
This technology already exists for the military and overseas voter
and it is essential that this option be made available to US
domestic absentee voters as well. Indeed, many domestic absentee
voters also may find themselves without the ballot they requested,
or are too late to make their ballot request, often due to confusing
or ambiguous administrative deadlines
Improvements are needed in absentee ballot application processes,
tracking, delivery, and counting. There should be an end to a
different application form for absentee ballot request in every
state. And no state should be allowed to offer no form, as fourteen
currently do, or to disallow computerized assistance to generate a
letter of ballot request. Such hurdles to absentee voter
participation must be removed.
We call for an immediate policy review of domestic absentee
balloting at a federal level, streamlining of the application
process, and cross-state availability of a standardized emergency
ballot. In addition, we call for the elimination of the preposterous
requirements for an "excuse" to vote absentee. It is a necessary
option for many voters, not an "excuse" to voting. For obvious
reasons of cyber security, protection against wholesale fraud and
ballot tampering, we specifically advocate for "Vote By Mail"
absentee balloting as opposed to any form of online ballot return.
Presently, US voter participation is low when compared to other
advanced democracies, reflecting an inadequate system with limited
capacity. Expanding the use of absentee balloting is a solution to
the capacity problems inherent in our voting system. We encourage a
full embrace of ideas and consideration for this alternative.
Improving the absentee voting processes across all states would have
an immediate impact on reducing the long lines at the polling place
while making voting more accessible. For many voters it is their
ONLY possibility to vote. It is not just the elderly or disabled
that need an absentee voting alternative, but also hard working
people who cannot leave their work to stand hours in line, parents
without childcare, students who cannot afford that amount of time
away from their studies, and people who travel in their jobs to name
just a few examples.
Vote-By-Mail absentee balloting must be embraced, expanded and
dramatically improved upon in order to achieve the total election
fix we are seeking. It is completely within our reach to transform
absentee balloting into a solid, reliable, convenient voting process
that any human being (even those who are not training for a
marathon) might enjoy.
Susan Dzieduszycka-Suinat, President & CEO, U.S. and Overseas Vote
Foundation
With collaboration and contributions from:
Dr. Claire Smith, Director of Research, U.S. and Overseas Vote
Foundation
Dr. Judith Murray, Research Program Assistant, U.S. and Overseas
Vote Foundation
*
*
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D43992&title=%E2%80%9CImproved%20Absentee%20Balloting%20Processes%20Essential%20to%20the%20%E2%80%98Fix%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in absentee ballots <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>,
election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> | Comments Off
"Legal Center Files Brief Defending Wisconsin Disclosure Laws in 7th
Circuit Court of Appeals" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=43989>
Posted on November 9, 2012 3:01 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=43989>
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
See this release
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1957:november-9-2012-legal-center-files-brief-defending-wisconsin-disclosure-laws-in-7th-circuit-court-of-appeals&catid=63:legal-center-press-releases&Itemid=61>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D43989&title=%E2%80%9CLegal%20Center%20Files%20Brief%20Defending%20Wisconsin%20Disclosure%20Laws%20in%207th%20Circuit%20Court%20of%20Appeals%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
Comments Off
Group Claims Allen West Election Stolen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=43985>
Posted on November 9, 2012 2:57 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=43985>
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
From a GOPUSA email (this is NOT the official Republican Party):
Dear Patriot,
*Conservative hero Allen West is in the midst of a brutal recount.
His entire career hangs in the balance.*
<http://www.gopusamedia.com/C/386/8115/1791622>The liberals threw
everything they had at him in this election and couldn't defeat him
outright.
*So now they are trying to STEAL this election!*
Please help Revive America stand up to defend Colonel Allen West
right now! Please make an URGENT contribution of $35, $50, $75,
$100, $200 or whatever you can today.
*/This really is an epic battle between a conservative hero and the
entire liberal establishment./*
And Allen West is getting very little help from the Republican
Party. He needs grassroots conservatives to stand up today!
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D43985&title=Group%20Claims%20Allen%20West%20Election%20Stolen&description=>
Posted in chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, The Voting
Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
"Did Big Money Really Lose This Election? Hardly"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=43981>
Posted on November 9, 2012 2:47 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=43981>
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
This item
<http://www.southernstudies.org/2012/11/did-big-money-really-lose-this-election-hardly.html>appears
at Facing South.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D43981&title=%E2%80%9CDid%20Big%20Money%20Really%20Lose%20This%20Election%3F%20Hardly%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
Comments Off
Cleta Mitchell Responds Re Voting Wars Truce
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=43978>
Posted on November 9, 2012 2:42 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=43978>
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Following up on this post <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=43943>, Cleta
Mitchell has written this response
<http://rnla.org/blogs/blogs/public/archive/2012/11/09/in-response-to-rick-hasen.aspx>
over at the RNLA blog: "In response to Rick Hasen's 'interpretation'
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=43943> of my piece in the New York Times
<http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/11/08/does-our-voting-system-need-to-be-fixed?hp>,
I did NOT say there is no voter fraud. The RNLA website documents
<http://rnla.org/votefraud.asp> its existence. What I did say --- and
what I'm suggesting --- is that improving election administration in
America should not be a partisan issue -- and we should stop calling
each other names. We need to find ways to stop bickering and make
election administration a priority. Denying the very existence of vote
fraud only lulls people into a false belief that there is no particular
urgency or necessity to improve the system."
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D43978&title=Cleta%20Mitchell%20Responds%20Re%20Voting%20Wars%20Truce&description=>
Posted in The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> |
Comments Off
"Election Day Results: 12 officials ousted, 10 survive; 4 places add
recall laws" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=43973>
Posted on November 9, 2012 2:38 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=43973>
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
This item
<http://recallelections.blogspot.com/2012/11/election-day-results-12-officials.html>appears
at the Recall Elections Blog.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D43973&title=%E2%80%9CElection%20Day%20Results%3A%2012%20officials%20ousted%2C%2010%20survive%3B%204%20places%20add%20recall%20laws%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in recall elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=11> |
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
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org
Now available: The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTv
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121109/7ba5346f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121109/7ba5346f/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 200px-Allen_West,_Official_Portrait,_112th_Congress.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 16078 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121109/7ba5346f/attachment.jpg>
View list directory