[EL] ELB News and Commentary 4/1/13

Mon Apr 1 10:06:12 PDT 2013

Good one. With Ginsberg joining the Joint Commission and Cleta Mitchell's
statement months ago, I must admit, you got me!

Steve

On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>   Supreme Court, Without Noted Dissent, Denies Cert. in Lepak “One
> Person, One Vote” Case <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48903>
> Posted on April 1, 2013 7:54 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48903> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The order list is here<http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040113zor_bq7d.pdf>
> .
>
> The petition <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45654> garnered a lot of
> attention, including in a Sidebar column from Adam Liptak<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/19/us/one-person-one-vote-rule-reaches-supreme-court.html?_r=0>,
> no doubt it because it was backed by Edward Blum, who successfully brought
> the Fisher affirmative action case and Shelby County and NAMUDNO voting
> rights cases to the Court.
>
> But I had been skeptical <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48521> the Court
> would take the case, A ruling that jurisdictions could not count “all
> persons” for purposes of redistricting and must exclude non-citizens would
> have called into question thousands of districting plans across the
> country, and it was a theory which seemed to be in direct conflict with the
> constitutional text.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48903&title=Supreme%20Court%2C%20Without%20Noted%20Dissent%2C%20Denies%20Cert.%20in%20Lepak%20%E2%80%9COne%20Person%2C%20One%20Vote%E2%80%9D%20Case&description=>
>   Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, voting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>,
> Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
>   “Judges, Politics and George Soros”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48900>
> Posted on April 1, 2013 7:47 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48900> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> WSJ editorial<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323415304578368351828159918.html>
> :
>
> The so-called Missouri plan for choosing judges has become so troublesome
> that several states are now altering or abandoning it. In Pennsylvania,
> however, three former Governors are getting on board with an effort to
> impose it for state appellate and Supreme Court judges.
>
> On a conference call in March with the George Soros-funded Justice at
> Stake, former Governors Ed Rendell, Tom Ridge and Dick Thornburgh said they
> want judicial selection taken away from voters and given to a judicial
> nominating commission. The state’s current system of judicial elections,
> Mr. Ridge said, “casts a dark shadow, a heavy cloud over the integrity and
> independence of the judicial system.”
>
> This is especially awkward for Republicans Thornburgh and Ridge, who are
> embracing a plan that has regularly sent state courts to the left. While
> the Missouri Plan was created with the hopes of insulating judges from
> politics, and travels under the false front of “merit selection,” it has
> instead transferred power to state bar associations while shielding the
> selection process from public scrutiny.
>
>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48900&title=%E2%80%9CJudges%2C%20Politics%20and%20George%20Soros%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in judicial elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19> | Comments
> Off
>   “Helping LA County Build a Voting System”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48897>
> Posted on April 1, 2013 7:42 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48897> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Joe Hall <https://josephhall.org/nqb2/index.php/vsaptac>: “This past week
> I was at the kick-off meeting of the LA County Voting System Assessment
> Project’s <http://www.lavote.net/voter/vsap/> (VSAP) Technical Advisory
> Committee. The VSAP is Registrar/Clerk Dean Logan’s<http://www.lavote.net/GENERAL/PDFS/Dean_Logan_Biography.pdf>intense and groundbreaking effort to design, develop, procure and implement
> a publicly owned voting system. I am honored to be asked to serve on such
> an important body.”
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48897&title=%E2%80%9CHelping%20LA%20County%20Build%20a%20Voting%20System%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, voting
> technology <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40> | Comments Off
>   “South Carolina’s ‘Evolutionary Process’”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48894>
> Posted on April 1, 2013 7:38 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48894> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Ellen Katz has written this important new article
> <http://www.columbialawreview.org/south-carolinas-evolutionary-process/>for
> Columbia Law Review’s *Sidebar*, the first in a series of essays on
> election law issues in the 2012 election.  From the introduction:
>
> Undeniably, things have changed. Opportunities for minority political
> participation in places like South Carolina have evolved since Congress
> first enacted the VRA. Supporters of the VRA readily acknowledge as much
> but argue that this evolution is less developed, more fragile, and more
> dependent on section 5’s continued operation than South Carolina and others
> siding with the petitioners in *Shelby County* maintain.<http://www.columbialawreview.org/south-carolinas-evolutionary-process/#5>
> 5<http://www.columbialawreview.org/south-carolinas-evolutionary-process/#5> The
> pending case accordingly presents the Court with competing narratives, one
> of a problem solved and, hence, a statute that has run its course, and
> another depicting a vulnerable work in progress that requires the sustained
> attention the VRA provides.
>
> There is, nevertheless, an additional narrative the Justices should
> consider when they evaluate how far places subject to the VRA’s regional
> provisions have evolved. This narrative posits that section 5 is far from
> obsolete and operates not only as a restraint on the ill-intentioned, but
> also as an affirmative tool of governance. On this account, one of the
> VRA’s most critical, albeit least appreciated, functions is the way in
> which it helps public officials navigate complex contemporary questions
> concerning equality of opportunity in the political process.<http://www.columbialawreview.org/south-carolinas-evolutionary-process/#6>
> 6<http://www.columbialawreview.org/south-carolinas-evolutionary-process/#6>
> A good example of the VRA’s role in this regard is found in the recent
> dispute over voter identification (ID) in South Carolina. The “evolutionary
> process”<http://www.columbialawreview.org/south-carolinas-evolutionary-process/#7>
> 7<http://www.columbialawreview.org/south-carolinas-evolutionary-process/#7> through
> which voter ID came to be approved in South Carolina shows section 5
> operating not only as a constraint, but also as a constructive mechanism
> for dispute resolution. In this capacity, section 5 helped produce a voter
> ID measure which, as one reviewing judge explained, “accomplishes South
> Carolina’s important objectives, while protecting every individual’s right
> to vote and . . . addressing the significant concerns” about the measure’s
> impact on minority voters.<http://www.columbialawreview.org/south-carolinas-evolutionary-process/#8>
> 8<http://www.columbialawreview.org/south-carolinas-evolutionary-process/#8>
>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48894&title=%E2%80%9CSouth%20Carolina%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%98Evolutionary%20Process%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting
> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
>   “Obama Forms Presidential Commission To Study Voting Problems”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48891>
> Posted on April 1, 2013 7:35 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48891> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NPR reports<http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/03/28/175605639/obama-forms-presidential-commission-to-study-voting-problems>
> .
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48891&title=%E2%80%9CObama%20Forms%20Presidential%20Commission%20To%20Study%20Voting%20Problems%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
>   Leading Election Lawyers Issue Major Statement Declaring a Truce in The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48883>
> Posted on April 1, 2013 6:30 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48883> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Attorneys representing Democrats and Republicans have issued a joint
> statement<http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Zr4JwPb99qU>about the urgent need for the parties to come together to support a bipartisan
> package of election reform <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0>to be introduced in
> Congress<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080703/obit-harmon/images/21bbb7d5-e522-4256-8a6b-e83b630eb739.jpg>.
> An excerpt:
>
> The time for demagoguery of this issue is over. Our democracy is too
> precious to trust to a broken and partisan election system. No longer
> should party officials preside over federal elections. Our system should be
> run by trained professionals with allegiance to the fairness of the
> electoral process and not to any party or candidate.
>
> The time has come for Republicans to admit that the problem of voter
> fraud, while real, has been exaggerated for partisan gain.  Voter id laws
> will do little to stop real fraud and constraints on absentee balloting
> will be the first step to address real problems of fraud.
>
> The time has come for Democrats to admit that not all Republican concerns
> about election integrity amount to an effort at voter suppression.
> Noncitizen voting, for example,  is a small problem, but a real one.
>
> A national voter identification program, coupled with voluntary universal
> voter registration conducted by the federal government can solve problems
> with voter fraud and insure the right of all eligible Americans to vote.
> The system of state sovereignty and federalism must be protected, but it
> must give way only to the extent necessary to assure that all eligible
> voters, but only eligible voters will cast a vote which can be counted.
>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48883&title=Leading%20Election%20Lawyers%20Issue%20Major%20Statement%20Declaring%20a%20Truce%20in%20The%20Voting%20Wars&description=>
>   Posted in election law "humor" <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=52>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
>   Supreme Court Announces “No Cuts” Policy, Wristband Policy Modeled
> after Springsteen Concerts <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48887>
> Posted on April 1, 2013 5:48 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48887> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> In the wake of mischief on long lines at the Supreme Court in the gay
> marriage cases, including people such as Rob Reiner<http://www.volokh.com/2013/03/28/line-standing-services-at-the-supreme-court/>paying up to $6,000 to other people to stand in line to hold a place for
> Supreme Court oral argument, and reports that lawyers<http://www.volokh.com/2013/03/30/misbehavior-at-the-court/>on the Supreme Court bar line not only paid line standers but brought their
> friends to cut in line in front of others who had waited all night for a
> seat at the oral argument in the DOMA case, the following press release<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ>was issued:
>
> Chief Justice Roberts declared “Enough is Enough” and announced two new
> policies for high profile cases at the Supreme Court.
>
> 1. For members of the Supreme Court bar, the Court is adopting Rule 49.
> Rule 49 is  the new “no cutsies” rule<http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/1299317.aspx>.
> Cuts are not allowed.  Anyone who cuts in line on the Supreme Court bar
> line will be sent to the Chief Justice’s office by the Supreme Court police
> for a stern talking-to. Parents of  line cutters may be called.
>
> 2. For others coming to line, under new Rule 50 Supreme Court police will
> distribute wristbands the evening before oral argument generally followingprocedures for the distribution<http://brucespringsteen.net/news/2012/general-admission-lottery-procedure-for-fall-2012>of Bruce Springsteen floor admission.. The most junior Justice will choose
> a number by lot for the start of the lottery.  The first 50 people
> beginning with the chosen number will be allowed into the new “pit area”
> for Supreme Court oral arguments.  “I may be the boss of the Supreme Court,
> but sometimes we all have to learn something from ‘The Boss,’” the Chief
> Justice said.
>
> The Court does not plan on changing its policy barring the use of cameras
> at argument.
>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48887&title=Supreme%20Court%20Announces%20%E2%80%9CNo%20Cuts%E2%80%9D%20Policy%2C%20Wristband%20Policy%20Modeled%20after%20Springsteen%20Concerts&description=>
>   Posted in election law "humor" <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=52>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off
>  “Escape from the ‘Devonian Amber’: A Reply to Voting and Vice”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48880>
> Posted on March 30, 2013 2:19 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48880> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Alec Ewald has written this Essay<http://www.yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law-journal-pocket-part/scholarship/escape-from-the-%E2%80%9Cdevonian-amber%E2%80%9D:-a-reply-to-voting-and-vice/>for the Yale Law Journal Online.  Here is the abstract:
>
> *This Essay replies to Richard Re and Christopher Re’s *Voting and Vice<http://www.yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/1079.pdf>
> *. That article, recently published in *The Yale Law Journal*,
> demonstrates that the inclusion of the phrase “other crime” in Section 2 of
> the Fourteenth Amendment was no accident, and the authors contend that
> widespread support for criminal disenfranchisement in the Reconstruction
> Congress should enhance the restriction’s status today. This Essay argues
> that those who wrote disenfranchisement into the U.S. Constitution did so
> from a context far removed from the views to which Americans adhere today
> when they talk about voting and political equality. Despite the fact that
> some Republicans made principled arguments contrasting criminal
> disenfranchisement with African-American enfranchisement, citizens and
> legislators who propose to abolish or restrict disenfranchisement neither
> dishonor nor render incoherent the Reconstruction Amendments.*
>
>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48880&title=%E2%80%9CEscape%20from%20the%20%E2%80%98Devonian%20Amber%E2%80%99%3A%20A%20Reply%20to%20Voting%20and%20Vice%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in felon voting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=66> | 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-- 
Steve Hoersting
CENTER for COMPETITIVE POLITICS
124 S. West Street
Suite 201
Alexandria, Va. 22314
(703) 894-6800
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130401/053eed18/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/20130401/053eed18/attachment.png>