[EL] Grassroots Lobbyign Disclosure
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Mon Aug 26 09:24:59 PDT 2013
Of course, Rick, I remember the quote from CU -- I did not dispute that. I
only disputed the Doe v Reed claim, which you now concede was in error.
But the real question is not the existence of the voter information
interest for political activity but what is the political activity to which it
attaches. So far the Court has only approved a very narrow set of political
communications to which the voter info interest attaches -- IEs and ECs.
Narrow indeed, clearly not issue advocacy as the "reformers" erroneously
claim. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 8/26/2013 12:11:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) writes:
You are right Jim that the Court did not reach the issue in Doe v. Reed ("
Respondents assert two interests to justify the burdens of compelled
disclosure under the PRA on _First Amendment_
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmenti) rights: (1) preserving the integrity of the
electoral process by combating fraud, detecting invalid signatures, and
fostering government transparency and accountability; and (2) providing
information to the electorate about who supports the petition. See, e.g. , Brief
for Respondent Reed 39–42, 44–45. Because we determine that the State’s
interest in preserving the integrity of the electoral process suffices to
defeat the argument that the PRA is unconstitutional with respect to referendum
petitions in general, we need not, and do not, address the State’s “
informational” interest. ")
But the Court did reach the issue and accepted the information interest in
Harriss and Citizens United. Here's a piece of Citizens United, which
surely you remember:
The Court has explained that disclosure is a less restrictive alternative
to more comprehensive regulations of speech. See, e.g., MCFL , 479 U. S.,
at 262. In Buckley , the Court upheld a disclosure requirement for
independent expenditures even though it invalidated a provision that imposed a
ceiling on those expenditures. 424 U. S., at 75–76. In McConnell , three
Justices who would have found §441b to be unconstitutional nonetheless voted to
uphold BCRA’s disclosure and disclaimer requirements. 540 U. S., at 321
(opinion of Kennedy, J. , joined by Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia, J. ). And
the Court has upheld registration and disclosure requirements on lobbyists,
even though Congress has no power to ban lobbying itself. United States v.
Harriss , _347 U. S. 612_
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?347+612) , 625 (1954) (Congress “has merely provided for a modicum of
information from those who for hire attempt to influence legislation or who
collect or spend funds for that purpose”). For these reasons, we reject
Citizens United’s contention that the disclosure requirements must be limited to
speech that is the functional equivalent of express advocacy.
Citizens United also disputes that an informational interest justifies the
application of §201 to its ads, which only attempt to persuade viewers to
see the film. Even if it disclosed the funding sources for the ads,
Citizens United says, the information would not help viewers make informed choices
in the political marketplace. This is similar to the argument rejected
above with respect to disclaimers. Even if the ads only pertain to a
commercial transaction, the public has an interest in knowing who is speaking about
a candidate shortly before an election. Because the informational interest
alone is sufficient to justify application of §201 to these ads, it is not
necessary to consider the Government’s other asserted interests.
On 8/26/2013 9:03 AM, _JBoppjr at aol.com_ (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com) wrote:
Regarding:
The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the information interest as
sufficient to support disclosure of political activities, from Harriss to
Citizens United to Doe v. Reed
Sorry Rick, but not true. Doe v Reed recognized only the state's interest
in preventing and discovering fraud, not a voter information interest.
Jim Bopp
In a message dated 8/26/2013 10:17:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) writes:
Steve,
I'd like to see more on the substance and less on the hyperbole. Saying
"Wrong" is not very edifying.
In fact, Lloyd's point is correct as a matter of doctrine. The Supreme
Court has repeatedly recognized the information interest as sufficient to
support disclosure of political activities, from Harriss to Citizens United to
Doe v. Reed. You may disagree with what the Court has said, or the
extension to so-called grassroots lobbying, but explanation rather than dismissive
tone would be more welcome.
Rick
On 8/26/2013 6:22 AM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
Wrong.
Find and check out a video seminar called A Skeptical Look at Grassroots
Lobbying Disclosure on the Cato Institute website.
Suffer through the whole thing and you will be much further along.
Best,
Steve Hoersting
On Aug 26, 2013 9:17 AM, "Lloyd Mayer" <_lmayer at nd.edu_
(mailto:lmayer at nd.edu) > wrote:
Having recently delved into grassroots lobbying disclosure, I should note
that another rationale asserted in its favor is providing information to
the targeted members of the public. Providing information is of course one
of government interests stated by the Court in Buckley for permitting
required disclosure even in the face of constitutional objections, and is the
primary (only?) rationale relied upon in the portion of the Citizens United
decision relating to disclosure. Of course in those contexts the interest
was providing information to voters, but it is not a great stretch to
expand that interest to include providing information to the public that is
sought to be influenced in the grassroots lobbying context.
Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer
Professor of Law & Associate Dean
Notre Dame Law School
P.O. Box 780
Notre Dame, IN 46556-0780
campus address: 1106 Eck Hall of Law
_(574) 631-8057_ (tel:(574)%20631-8057) /cell: _(574) 598-0740_
(tel:(574)%20598-0740) /fax: _(574) 631-4197_ (tel:(574)%20631-4197)
Web Bio: http://law.nd.edu/directory/lloyd-mayer/
SSRN Author Page:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=504775
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_ (mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu) ] On
Behalf Of Eric Lycan
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 8:46 AM
To: Smith, Brad; _law-election at uci.edu_ (mailto:law-election at uci.edu)
Subject: Re: [EL] KY Legislative Ethics proposal to require reporting of
grassroots lo...
Thanks to everyone from both points of view for the informative
responses.
I am aware of the case law (though Harris was a new one to me) as to
disclosure of electoral spending, and also that many states have grassroots
lobbying disclosure. What is not clear to me is how the anti-corruption
rationale applies to allow regulation of non-electoral, indirect speech on
current legislative issues (as opposed to ballot issues addressed in Belotti).
If independent expenditures are not sufficiently corrupting to justify a
ban on IEs, can independent non-electoral, non-candidate/officeholder speech
be regulated - even to the extent of requiring disclosure - when there can
be no corrupting influence (recognizing that not everyone agrees with that
premise)? It seems to me that removing the electoral element from the
equation takes the anti-corruption rationale off the field.
The regulation of direct lobbying might be the justification for
regulation of speech by the lobbyist’s employer; however, if the ability to make
contributions does not affect the ability of a (non-corporate) contributor to
make unlimited IEs in the post-CU world, perhaps the added element of
lobbyist involvement does not justify the regulation of such purely
issue-related speech.
If anyone is aware of challenges to state grassroots lobbying laws, I
would be very interested in the courts’ analyses. And of course your
thoughts, which are compelling reading. Thanks.
D. Eric Lycan
Steptoe & Johnson PLLC
2525 Harrodsburg Road, Suite 300
Lexington, KY 40504
O: _859-219-8213_ (tel:859-219-8213) F: _304-933-8715_ (tel:304-933-8715)
C: _859-621-8888_ (tel:859-621-8888)
_Eric.Lycan at Steptoe-Johnson.com_ (mailto:Eric.Lycan at Steptoe-Johnson.com)
_www.steptoe-johnson.com_ (http://www.steptoe-johnson.com/)
Twitter: @KYcampaignlaw
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_ (mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu) ] On
Behalf Of Smith, Brad
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 9:02 AM
To: _law-election at uci.edu_ (mailto:law-election at uci.edu)
Subject: Re: [EL] KY Legislative Ethics proposal to require reporting of
grassroots lo...
For reasons Jim and Allen have addressed, and a couple others as well, I
think it is dishonest to say that the Court has "approved," "upheld," or
"sanctioned" the type of disclosure that the reform community and CLC now
seek to impose broadly on 501c4 groups. There is certainly language in
Citizens United (especially when coupled with McConnell and Doe v. Reed) to make
one project that the Court would uphold such regulation if presented
squarely with the issue today. But for now the controlling precedent, in which the
Court has squarely faced that issue, remains Buckley (and also MCFL),
which does not sanction that type of disclosure and was not altered by Citizens
United.
The particular Kentucky rule may have different implications because the
Court has seemed willing to tolerate more regulation of the behavior of
registered lobbyists. However, one could also consider it a weaker case for
such regulation, since the language the reform community seeks to rely on in
Citizens United and McConnell did concern candidates running for office,
not any advertising discussing issues.
Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
_614.236.6317_ (tel:614.236.6317)
http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
____________________________________
From: _law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu) [_law-el
ection-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_ (mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu) ] on behalf
of _JBoppjr at aol.com_ (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com) [_JBoppjr at aol.com_
(mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com) ]
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 8:37 AM
To: _PRyan at campaignlegalcenter.org_ (mailto:PRyan at campaignlegalcenter.org)
; _Eric.Lycan at Steptoe-Johnson.com_ (mailto:Eric.Lycan at Steptoe-Johnson.com) ;
_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) ; _law-election at uci.edu_
(mailto:law-election at uci.edu)
Subject: Re: [EL] KY Legislative Ethics proposal to require reporting of
grassroots lo...
Regarding:
I’m struggling to understand how you can read this passage from Citizens
United: “For these reasons, we reject Citizens United's contention that the
disclosure requirements must be limited to speech that is the functional
equivalent of express advocacy”; and then write: “McConnell and Citizens
United upheld electioneering communications reporting after being convinced
by studies that ECs were the functional equivalent of express advocacy.”
Let me try to help you with your struggle.
McConnell upheld the EC provision because studies convinced the majority
that ECs were the functional equivalent of express advocacy and did not
apply to genuine issue advocacy. WRTL then narrowed the definition of
functional equivalent to apply only when there is no reasonable interpretation of
the message of the communication other than it appeals for a vote for or
against a candidate -- "the appeal to vote test."
CU argued that the disclosure provision should also be limited by the
"appeal to vote test" -- the WRTL definition of functional equivalent. This
is what the Court rejected -- leaving disclosure to encompass all ECs upheld
by McConnell-- which the Court said was the functional equivalent of
express advocacy and did not encompass genuine issue advocacy.
It is true that Kennedy used the phrase "functional equivalent of express
advocacy" without referencing whether it was WRTL's or McConnell's --
leading some to be confused about this. However, the parties were arguing that
it should be limited to WRTL's "appeal to vote test" -- WRTL's new
definition of functional equivalent.
So we are now back to McConnell's definition of ECs, which does not apply
-- said the McConnell Court -- to genuine issue advocacy.
Some times you need to look at what the parties are arguing to understand
what the Court rejected.
Jim Bopp
In a message dated 8/24/2013 12:29:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
_PRyan at campaignlegalcenter.org_ (mailto:PRyan at campaignlegalcenter.org) writes:
Jim,
I’m struggling to understand how you can read this passage from Citizens
United: “For these reasons, we reject Citizens United's contention that the
disclosure requirements must be limited to speech that is the functional
equivalent of express advocacy”; and then write: “McConnell and Citizens
United upheld electioneering communications reporting after being convinced
by studies that ECs were the functional equivalent of express advocacy.”
The 8 members of the Court upholding the challenged disclosure
requirements in Citizens United gave no indication they had been “convinced” that
the ads were “the functional equivalent of express advocacy.” On the
contrary, the Court held that it made no difference whether the ads were the “f
unctional equivalent of express advocacy” and explicitly rejected the “
contention that the disclosure requirements must be limited to speech that is
the functional equivalent of express advocacy.”
And in doing so, the Citizens United Court explicitly distinguished
spending restrictions, citing its decision in WRTL, from the disclosure
requirements at issue in Citizens United. The Court wrote: “As a final point,
Citizens United claims that, in any event, the disclosure requirements in §
201 must be confined to speech that is the functional equivalent of express
advocacy. The principal opinion in WRTL limited 2 U.S.C. § 441b's
restrictions on independent expenditures to express advocacy and its functional
equivalent. Citizens United seeks to import a similar distinction into BCRA's
disclosure requirements. We reject this contention.” 558 U.S. at 368-69
(citation to WRTL omitted).
And you, Jim, rejected the notion that the ads at issue in Citizens
United were the “functional equivalent of express advocacy,” repeatedly
characterizing the ads as “issue advocacy” in the complaint you filed in the
case. Your amended complaint filed on 12/21/2007 refers to “issue-advocacy ad”
in para. 18, refers to the ads as “protected issue advocacy” in para.
18, argues that the ads are subject to disclosure only because the FEC
refused to include “the Supreme Court’s issue-advocacy safe harbor” established
in WRTL in para. 22, and again refers again to the ads as “issue advocacy”
in para. 27.
Give yourself some credit, Jim! It seems you and your co-counsel
throughout the Citizens United litigation convinced the Court that the ads were
NOT the functional equivalent of express advocacy. Yet the Court upheld the
disclosure requirements applicable to the ads anyway.
And there’s also the Supreme Court’s decision in Harriss, where the
Court held with respect to lobbying-related disclosure (i.e., what you would
likely call “genuine issue advocacy”): “Under these circumstances, we
believe that Congress, at least within the bounds of the Act as we have construed
it, is not constitutionally forbidden to require the disclosure of
lobbying activities.” United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 625 (1954).
And there’s the Court’s decision in Bellotti, where, with respect to
corporate spending regarding a ballot referendum (i.e., what you would likely
call “genuine issue advocacy”), the Court wrote: “Identification of the
source of advertising may be required as a means of disclosure, so that the
people will be able to evaluate the arguments to which they are being
subjected. In addition, we emphasized in Buckley the prophylactic effect of
requiring that the source of communication be disclosed. 435 U.S. 765, 792
(internal citations omitted) (citing Buckley, 424 U.S. at 66-67; Harriss, 347
U.S. at 625-626).
In short, what I wrote yesterday (“The Court has struck down limits on
contributions and expenditures, while upholding disclosure requirements
applicable to issue advocacy.”) is indeed true. Best,
Paul Seamus Ryan
Senior Counsel
The Campaign Legal Center
215 E Street NE
Washington, DC 20002
Ph. _(202) 736-2200 ext. 214_ (tel:(202)%20736-2200%20ext.%20214)
Mobile Ph. _(202) 262-7315_ (tel:(202)%20262-7315)
Fax _(202) 736-2222_ (tel:(202)%20736-2222)
Website: http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/
Blog: http://www.clcblog.org/
To sign up for the CLC Blog, visit:
http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_forme&fid=1&Itemid=63
Follow us on Twitter @CampaignLegal
Become a fan on Facebook
From: _JBoppjr at aol.com_ (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com) [mailto:_JBoppjr at aol.com_
(mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com) ]
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 8:57 AM
To: Paul Ryan; _Eric.Lycan at Steptoe-Johnson.com_
(mailto:Eric.Lycan at Steptoe-Johnson.com) ; _rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) ;
_law-election at uci.edu_ (mailto:law-election at uci.edu)
Subject: Re: [EL] KY Legislative Ethics proposal to require reporting of
grassroots lo...
This is not true:
The Court has struck down limits on contributions and expenditures, while
upholding disclosure requirements applicable to issue advocacy
Buckley upheld independent expenditure reports after limiting them to
express advocacy communications thus protecting issue advocacy. McConnell and
Citizens United upheld electioneering communications reporting after
being convinced by studies that ECs were the functional equivalent of express
advocacy -- not genuine issue advocacy.
So there is actually no Supreme Court precedent approving the reporting of
issue advocacy or grass root lobbying at all, only cases limiting campaign
finance reporting to express advocacy or its functional equivalent. Jim
Bopp
In a message dated 8/23/2013 4:41:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
_PRyan at campaignlegalcenter.org_ (mailto:PRyan at campaignlegalcenter.org) writes:
Mr. Lycan,
I’m not writing to express an opinion regarding the KY Legislative Ethics
Commission recommendation you wrote about—I haven’t given it any thought.
And I’m not familiar with similar legislation elsewhere. I’m only
writing to explain that the Supreme Court for decades has applied different
scrutiny to, and has recognized different governmental interests supporting,
reporting/disclosure requirements vis-à-vis direct limits on political
contributions and spending. The Court has struck down limits on contributions
and expenditures, while upholding disclosure requirements applicable to
issue advocacy.
In Citizens Against Rent Control, a case you cite, the Court struck down
a limit on contributions to ballot measure committees and, in doing so,
noted approvingly the reporting/disclosure requirements applicable to the
plaintiff ballot measure committee’s issue advocacy. The Court wrote:
“Notwithstanding Buckley and Bellotti, the city of Berkeley argues that §
602 is necessary as a prophylactic measure to make known the identity of
supporters and opponents of ballot measures. It is true that when
individuals or corporations speak through committees, they often adopt seductive
names that may tend to conceal the true identity of the source. Here, there is
no risk that the Berkeley voters will be in doubt as to the identity of
those whose money supports or opposes a given ballot measure since
contributors must make their identities known under § 112 of the ordinance, which
requires publication of lists of contributors in advance of the voting. See n.
4, supra.” 454 U.S. at 498 (emphasis added).
Similarly, in the other cases you cite—WRTL and Citizens United—the
Court invalidated spending limits . . . NOT disclosure requirements. And in
Citizens United, the Court explicitly upheld a challenged disclosure
requirement. In doing so, the Citizens United Court explicitly rejected the
argument that disclosure must be limited to express candidate advocacy and cited
its decision in U.S. v. Harriss upholding grassroots lobbying disclosure
requirements. The Court wrote:
“The Court has explained that disclosure is a less restrictive
alternative to more comprehensive regulations of speech. See, e.g., _MCFL,_
(http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1
986161155) _ 479 U.S., at 262, 107 S.Ct. 616._
(http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1986161155) In
Buckley, the Court upheld a disclosure requirement for independent
expenditures even though it invalidated a provision that imposed a ceiling on those
expenditures. _424 U.S., at 75–76, 96 S.Ct. 612._
(http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976142308) In
McConnell, three Justices who would have found _§ 441b_
(http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=2USCAS441B&FindType=
L) to be unconstitutional nonetheless voted to uphold BCRA's disclosure
and disclaimer requirements. _540 U.S., at 321, 124 S.Ct. 619_
(http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2003
909967) (opinion of KENNEDY, J., joined by Rehnquist, C.J., and SCALIA,
J.). And the Court has upheld registration and disclosure requirements on
lobbyists, even though Congress has no power to ban lobbying itself. _United
States v. Harriss,_
(http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1954120885) _ 347 U.S. 612, 625, 74 S.Ct.
808, 98 L.Ed. 989 (1954)_
(http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1954120885) (Congress “has merely provided
for a modicum of information from those who for hire attempt to influence
legislation or who collect or spend funds for that purpose”). For these
reasons, we reject Citizens United's contention that the disclosure
requirements must be limited to speech that is the functional equivalent of express
advocacy.” 558 U.S. at 369.
Regardless of what one thinks of the KY Legislative Ethics Commission
recommended reporting/disclosure requirement, a court would/should apply a
different constitutional analysis than the analyses employed in the
contribution and spending limit cases you cite. Best,
Paul Seamus Ryan
Senior Counsel
The Campaign Legal Center
215 E Street NE
Washington, DC 20002
Ph. _(202) 736-2200 ext. 214_ (tel:(202)%20736-2200%20ext.%20214)
Mobile Ph. _(202) 262-7315_ (tel:(202)%20262-7315)
Fax (202) 736-2222
Website: http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/
Blog: http://www.clcblog.org/
To sign up for the CLC Blog, visit:
http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_forme&fid=1&Itemid=63
Follow us on Twitter @_CampaignLegal_ (http://bit.ly/j8Q1bg)
Become a _fan on Facebook_ (http://on.fb.me/jroDv2)
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 Eric Lycan
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 3:49 PM
To: Rick Hasen; _law-election at UCI.edu_ (mailto:law-election at UCI.edu)
Subject: [EL] KY Legislative Ethics proposal to require reporting of
grassroots lobbying
A KY political newspaper reports that the Legislative Ethics Commission
(which regulates lobbyists, gift rules, etc.) has made recommendations to
adopt new legislation. Much of it is unsurprising, but it also includes the
following language:
“Recommendation: Require reporting of the Cost of advertising which
appears during a session of the General Assembly, and which supports or opposes
legislation, if the cost is paid by a lobbyist's employer or a person
affiliated with an employer.”
This seems of very dubious constitutionality (see, e.g., Citizens Against
Rent Control v Berkeley, WRTL, Citizens United, etc.). If the state
cannot prohibit independent, express candidate advocacy, it is hard to justify
significant regulation of pure grassroots advocacy. I would like to read
other thoughts, though, on the extent to which the reporting requirement
might survive challenge as a justifiable speech restriction. Does the fact
that is applies only to employers of lobbyists alter the corruption rationale
analysis? Is mere reporting an insignificant burden? Is anyone aware of
similar legislation elsewhere, or a challenge to such?
Thanks.
D. Eric Lycan
Steptoe & Johnson PLLC
2525 Harrodsburg Road, Suite 300
Lexington, KY 40504
O: 859-219-8213 F: 304-933-8715 C: 859-621-8888
_Eric.Lycan at Steptoe-Johnson.com_ (mailto:Eric.Lycan at Steptoe-Johnson.com)
_www.steptoe-johnson.com_ (http://www.steptoe-johnson.com/)
Twitter: @KYcampaignlaw
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: Friday, August 23, 2013 1:04 AM
To: _law-election at UCI.edu_ (mailto:law-election at UCI.edu)
Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 8/23/13
_Law and Political Process Study Group Panel at APSA on Shelby County_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54746)
Posted on _August 22, 2013 8:03 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54746)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
I hope to see many of you in Chicago:
Law and Political Process Study Group
Panel 1 The Future of the Voting Rights Act After the Shelby County
Case
Date:
Thursday, Aug 29, 2013, 2:00 PM-3:45 PM
[ ]
Location:
Hilton 4A, 4th Floor
Subject to change. Check the Final Program at the conference.
Chair(s):
Bruce E. Cain
Stanford University
Author(s):
Regional Differences in Racial Polarization in the 2012 Presidential
Election: Implications for the Constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act
Charles Stewart
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Stephen D. Ansolabehere
Harvard University
Racially Polarized Voting, Dilution, and Preclearance: Post-Shelby County
Richard L. Engstrom
Duke University
Shelby County and the Illusion of Minimalism
Richard L. Hasen
University of California-Irvine
The Constitutional Structure of Voting Rights Enforcement
Franita Tolson
Florida State University
Discussant(s):
Luis Ricardo Fraga
University of Washington,
Guy-Uriel Charles
Duke University School of Law
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54746&title=Law%20and%20Political%20Process%20Study%20Group%20Panel%20at%20APSA%2
0on%20Shelby%20County&description=)
Posted in _Voting Rights Act_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15) |
Comments Off
_“U.S. Is Suing in Texas Cases Over Voting by Minorities”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54743)
Posted on _August 22, 2013 5:50 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54743)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Charlie Savage reports _
(http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/us/politics/justice-dept-moves-to-protect-minority-voters-in-texas.html?hp) for the NYT.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54743&title=“
U.S.%20Is%20Suing%20in%20Texas%20Cases%20Over%20Voting%20by%20Minorities”&description=)
Posted in _Department of Justice_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26) ,
_election administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18) ,
_redistricting_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6) , _Supreme Court_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29) , _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
_“Prosecutors charge 2 campaign aides for Miami mayoral candidate Francis
Suarez in absentee-ballot probe”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54740)
Posted on _August 22, 2013 5:48 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54740)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Miami Herald_
(http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/08/22/3580232/prosecutors-charge-2-campaign.html) : “Miami-Dade prosecutors on Thursday charged two
political operatives for Miami mayoral candidate Francis Suarez — including
his campaign manager — with unlawfully submitting absentee-ballot requests
online on behalf of voters….Francis Suarez, a sitting city commissioner and
lawyer, was cleared of any wrongdoing during the investigation, according
to the Miami-Dade state attorney’s office. His only involvement was
advising his campaign to seek legal advice to make sure any online requests did
not run afoul of the law.”
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54740&title=“
Prosecutors%20charge%202%20campaign%20aides%20for%20Miami%20mayoral%20candidate%20Francis%20Suarez%20in%20absentee-ballot%20probe”
&description=)
Posted in _absentee ballots_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53) ,
_campaigns_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59) , _chicanery_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12) | Comments Off
_“Justice Department Sues Texas Over Voter ID Law”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54737)
Posted on _August 22, 2013 5:45 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54737)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_WaPo reports_
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-department-sues-texas-over-voter-id-law/2013/08/22/ac654a68-0b4b-11e3-9941-6711ed662e71_s
tory.html) .
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54737&title=“Justice%20Department%20Sues%20Texas%20Over%20Voter%20ID%20Law”
&description=)
Posted in _Department of Justice_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26) ,
_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
_More Analysis of DOJ Filings Against Texas_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54734)
Posted on _August 22, 2013 4:29 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54734)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Zack Roth_
(http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/08/22/justice-department-sues-to-block-texas-voter-id-law/)
_Lyle Denniston_
(http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/08/u-s-sues-texas-over-voter-id/)
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54734&title=More%20Analysis%20of%20DOJ%20Filings%20Against%20Texas&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
_“Campaign Finance and the Cost of Doing Business”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54732)
Posted on _August 22, 2013 4:26 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54732)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Steve Klein _
(http://wyliberty.org/feature/campaign-finance-and-the-cost-of-doing-business/) on the McCain campaign conciliation agreement.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54732&title=“Campaign%20Finance%20and%20the%20Cost%20of%20Doing%20Business”
&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) |
Comments Off
_And We’re Back to the “Messes with Texas” Headlines_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54730)
Posted on _August 22, 2013 4:18 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54730)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_The Week_
(http://theweek.com/article/index/248642/the-justice-department-messes-with-texas-over-its-voter-id-law) on today’s DOJ move.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54730&title=And%20We’re%20Back%20to%20the%20“Messes%20with%20Texas”
%20Headlines&description=)
Posted in _Department of Justice_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26) ,
_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
_“Eric Holder Sues Texas Over Voter ID. Here’s Why It’s a Long Shot.”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54727)
Posted on _August 22, 2013 4:16 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54727)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_TNR reports_
(http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114436/eric-holder-sues-texas-over-voter-id-law-why-he-might-lose) .
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54727&title=“Eric%20Holder%20Sues%20Texas%20Over%20Voter%20ID.%20Here’
s%20Why%20It’s%20a%20Long%20Shot.”&description=)
Posted in _Department of Justice_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26) ,
_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://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
_http://electionlawblog.org_ (http://electionlawblog.org/)
____________________________________
Steptoe & Johnson PLLC Note:
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by
legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us
immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your
system. Also, In accordance with I.R.S. Circular 230, we advise you that any
tax advice in this email is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, by any recipient for the avoidance of penalties under federal tax
laws. Thank you for your cooperation.
=
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
____________________________________
Steptoe & Johnson PLLC Note:
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by
legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us
immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your
system. Also, In accordance with I.R.S. Circular 230, we advise you that any
tax advice in this email is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, by any recipient for the avoidance of penalties under federal tax
laws. Thank you for your cooperation.
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
--
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)
hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
_http://electionlawblog.org_ (http://electionlawblog.org/)
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
--
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)
hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
_http://electionlawblog.org_ (http://electionlawblog.org/)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130826/acfec6ba/attachment.html>
View list directory