[EL] ELB News and Commentary 12/14/13

Rick Hasen rhasen at law.uci.edu
Sat Dec 14 13:59:16 PST 2013


    "No sign Rep. Bobby Rush paid rent for South Side office;
    contributions helped bankroll his church, wife"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57458>

Posted on December 14, 2013 1:55 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57458>by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Chicago Sun-Times reports 
<http://www.suntimes.com/news/24190987-761/no-sign-rep-bobby-rush-paid-rent-for-south-side-office-contributions-helped-bankroll-his.html>.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57458&title=%E2%80%9CNo%20sign%20Rep.%20Bobby%20Rush%20paid%20rent%20for%20South%20Side%20office%3B%20%20contributions%20helped%20bankroll%20his%20church%2C%20wife%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, 
campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


    "Judge sends Arizona, Kansas voter citizenship suit back to US
    Election Assistance Commission" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57456>

Posted on December 14, 2013 1:37 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57456>by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

AP 
<http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/state/judge-sends-arizona-kansas-voter-citizenship-suit-back-to-us-election-assistance-commission>:

    A federal judge has sent back to federal elections officials a
    request by Kansas and Arizona to force modifications in a national
    voter registration form so the states can fully enforce
    proof-of-citizenship requirements.

    U.S. District Judge Eric Melgren on Friday sent the states' lawsuit
    back to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, with instructions
    that the commission has to have a final decision by Jan. 17.

There is zero chance the EAC will have a decision by that date, given 
that the commissionlacks any commissioners 
<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/12/12/13993/kill-election-assistance-commission>who 
could act.

As Justice Scalia wrote in the Inter-tribal 
<http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Arizona_v_Inter_Tribal_Council_of_Ariz_Inc_133_S_Ct_2247_186_L_Ed>case;

    The EAC currently lacks a quorum-indeed, the Commission has not a
    single active Commissioner. If the EAC proves unable to act on a
    renewed request, Arizona would be free to seek a writ of mandamus to
    "compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed."
    5 U.S.C. §706(1) . It is a nice point, which we need not resolve
    here, whether a court can compel agency action that the agency
    itself, for lack of the statutorily required quorum, is incapable of
    taking. If the answer to that is no, Arizona might then be in a
    position to assert a constitutional right to demand concrete
    evidence of citizenship apart from the Federal Form.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57456&title=%E2%80%9CJudge%20sends%20Arizona%2C%20Kansas%20voter%20citizenship%20suit%20back%20to%20US%20Election%20Assistance%20Commission%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, 
The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


    "Protests Aim at One Man Who Moved North Carolina to the Right"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57454>

Posted on December 14, 2013 1:32 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57454>by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/14/us/protests-aim-at-one-man-who-moved-state-to-right.html?ref=politics> 
on Art Pope protests.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57454&title=%E2%80%9CProtests%20Aim%20at%20One%20Man%20Who%20Moved%20North%20Carolina%20to%20the%20Right%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


    "Florida Supreme Court rules lawmakers can be forced to testify in
    redistricting court fight" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57451>

Posted on December 14, 2013 1:22 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57451>by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Orlando Sentinel 
<http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/blogs/political-pulse/os-florida-supreme-court-rules-lawmakers-can-be-forced-to-testify-in-redistricting-court-fight-20131213,0,1682150.post>:

    The Florida Supreme Court ruled Friday
    <http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2013/sc13-949.pdf>
    that state lawmakers can be forced to testify and turn
    over documents related to whether they intentionally redrew
    political maps for partisan gain last year.

    The fight between voting-rights groups such as the League of Women
    Voters of Florida and the Legislature stems from 2010 constitutional
    amendments adopted by voters that specify lawmakers couldn't base
    their decisions when re-drawing congressional and legislative
    districts on the desire for political gain.

    Specifically, the Fair Districts amendments outlawed drawing new
    lines with the intent to favor or disfavor incumbents or political
    parties.

    The groups challenging last year's maps say that is exactly what
    happened --- and have been battling in courts since spring 2012 over
    whether they can compel lawmakers and their staff to testify under
    oath and turn over draft versions of the maps that might shed light
    on their intentions.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57451&title=%E2%80%9CFlorida%20Supreme%20Court%20rules%20lawmakers%20can%20be%20forced%20to%20testify%20in%20redistricting%20court%20fight%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>


    Final Version Now Posted of "The 2012 Voting Wars, Judicial
    Backstops, and the Resurrection of Bush v. Gore"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57449>

Posted on December 14, 2013 1:18 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57449>by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

You can download it here 
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2182857>.  The 
entire /George Washington Law Review/ symposium issue in which this 
article will appear should post in the next few days.

Here is the abstract for my piece:

    In 2000, some scholars predicted the Supreme Court's controversial
    equal protection holding in Bush v. Gore that the state could not
    arbitrarily value one person's vote over that of another might be
    used to force states to improve their election processes through
    litigation. In the ensuing years, Bush v. Gore had not fulfilled
    that promise. Scholars debated when, if ever, the case could apply
    beyond the narrow facts of a statewide recount with inconsistent
    counting standards, but the courts seemed uninterested: the Supreme
    Court has failed to cite the case for any proposition, and the few
    lower courts which relied upon the case as precedent to create
    better and fairer voting conditions were overturned or limited. By
    2007, I lamented the "untimely death" of Bush v. Gore.

    A funny thing happened during 2012. The voting wars which had ensued
    since 2000 manifested themselves in a host of restrictive election
    rule changes passed in the name of fraud prevention and
    administrative convenience mostly by Republican legislatures and
    implemented by Republican election administrators. Democrats, the
    Department of Justice, and reform groups resisted the overreach,
    litigating over many of these changes. The results of this
    litigation was a mixed bag. For example, courts approved some voter
    identification laws, rejected others, and put Pennsylvania's and
    Wisconsin's laws on hold for this election season but perhaps not
    beyond that. Overall, it appeared that in the most egregious cases
    of partisan overreach, courts were serving, often with surprising
    unanimity, as a judicial backstop.

    In Ohio, one of the twin epicenters (along with Florida) of the 2012
    voting wars, two important cases relied in part on Bush v. Gore to
    expand voting rights. In one case, a conservative panel of the
    United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit --- a court
    which had shown itself bitterly divided along party and ideological
    lines on election issues in 2008 --- unanimously held that Ohio's
    disenfranchisement of voters for voting in the wrong polling
    location because of poll worker error violated the equal protection
    clause. In the other case, another Sixth Circuit panel held that
    Ohio's contraction of the early voting period to exclude the weekend
    before the election, for all voters except certain military voters,
    violated the equal protection clause under Bush v. Gore. The court
    so held despite the fact that Ohio provided 23 days of early voting
    and for the first time sent all Ohio voters a no-excuse absentee
    ballot application. This latter ruling was at best a major stretch
    of Bush v. Gore and existing precedent.

    The story of the 2012 voting wars is a story of Republican
    legislative and to some extent administrative overreach to contract
    voting rights, followed by a judicial and public backlash. The
    public backlash was somewhat expected --- Democrats predictably made
    "voter suppression" a key talking point of the campaign. The
    judicial backlash, and the resurrection of Bush v. Gore in the Sixth
    Circuit, was not. The judicial reaction, from liberal and
    conservative judges and often on a unanimous basis, suggests that
    courts may now be more willing to act as backstops to prevent
    egregious cutbacks in voting rights and perhaps to do even more to
    assure greater equality and fairness in voting. However, it is
    possible that this trend will reverse in future elections.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57449&title=Final%20Version%20Now%20Posted%20of%20%E2%80%9CThe%202012%20Voting%20Wars%2C%20Judicial%20Backstops%2C%20and%20the%20Resurrection%20of%20Bush%20v.%20Gore%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Bush v. Gore reflections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=5>, 
election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting 
Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


    "Texas Wouldn't Let This Afghanistan Vet Vote in the Last
    Presidential Election" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57447>

Posted on December 14, 2013 1:15 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57447>by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

/Mother Jones / 
<http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/12/texas-voter-law-signature-afghanistan-veteran>reports. 
<http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/12/texas-voter-law-signature-afghanistan-veteran>

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57447&title=%E2%80%9CTexas%20Wouldn%E2%80%99t%20Let%20This%20Afghanistan%20Vet%20Vote%20in%20the%20Last%20Presidential%20Election%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, 
military voting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=48>


    Audio Now Available of this Week's Joint CA Legislative Hearing on
    the Federal Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57445>

Posted on December 14, 2013 1:07 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57445>by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Here <mms://media.senate.ca.gov/2013-12-12-Joint-Elections>.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57445&title=Audio%20Now%20Available%20of%20this%20Week%E2%80%99s%20Joint%20CA%20Legislative%20Hearing%20on%20the%20Federal%20Voting%20Rights%20Act&description=>
Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


    "Subsidizing Democracy: How Public Funding Changes Elections and How
    It Can Work in the Future" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57443>

Posted on December 14, 2013 1:04 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57443>by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Michael Miller has publishedthis book 
<http://www.amazon.com/Subsidizing-Democracy-Funding-Changes-Elections/dp/0801452279> 
with Cornell University Press.

    In the wake of /Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission/
    (2010), the case that allowed corporate and union spending in
    elections, many Americans despaired over the corrosive influence
    that private and often anonymous money can have on political
    platforms, campaigns, and outcomes at the federal and state level.
    In /McComish v. Bennett/ (2011), the Supreme Court declared
    unconstitutional the matching funds feature of so-called "Clean
    Elections" public financing laws, but there has been no strong
    challenge to the constitutionality of public funding as such. In
    /Subsidizing Democracy/, Michael G. Miller considers the impact of
    state-level public election financing on political campaigns through
    the eyes of candidates. Miller's insights are drawn from survey data
    obtained from more than 1,000 candidates, elite interview testimony,
    and twenty years of election data. This book is therefore not only
    an effort to judge the effects of existing public election funding
    but also a study of elite behavior, campaign effects, and the
    structural factors that influence campaigns and voters.

    The presence of publicly funded candidates in elections, Miller
    reports, results in broad changes to the electoral system, including
    more interaction between candidates and the voting public and
    significantly higher voter participation. He presents evidence that
    by providing neophytes with resources that would have been
    unobtainable otherwise, subsidies effectively manufacture quality
    challengers. Miller describes how matching-funds provisions of Clean
    Elections laws were pervasively manipulated by candidates and
    parties and were ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court. A
    revealing book that will change the way we think about campaign
    funding, /Subsidizing Democracy/ concludes with an evaluation of
    existing proposals for future election policy in light of Miller's
    findings.

I've blurbed this book and recommend it.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57443&title=%E2%80%9CSubsidizing%20Democracy%3A%20How%20Public%20Funding%20Changes%20Elections%20and%20How%20It%20Can%20Work%20in%20the%20Future%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


    "Political Activity, Lobbying Laws and Gift Rules Guide, 3d,
    2013-2014 ed." <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57441>

Posted on December 14, 2013 1:00 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57441>by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Trevor Potter and Matthew Sanderson edit. 
<http://legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Treatises/Political-Activity-Lobbying-Laws-and-Gift-Rules-Guide-3d-2013-2014-ed/p/100206238>

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57441&title=%E2%80%9CPolitical%20Activity%2C%20Lobbying%20Laws%20and%20Gift%20Rules%20Guide%2C%203d%2C%202013-2014%20ed.%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in lobbying <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>


    "Politics to the Extreme: American Political Institutions in the
    Twenty-First Century" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57439>

Posted on December 14, 2013 12:52 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57439>by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Scott A. Frisch and Sean Q Kelly are editors of this new volume 
<http://us.macmillan.com/politicstotheextreme/ScottAFrisch>.  Here is 
the table of contents:

    Foreword; Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein
    Introduction; Scott A. Frisch and Sean Q Kelly
    PART I: CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF PARTISAN POLARIZATION
    1. Appropriations to the Extreme: Partisanship and the Power of the
    Purse; Geoffrey W. Buhl, Scott A. Frisch and Sean Q Kelly
    2. The Gingrich Senators, the Tea Party Senators, and Their Effect
    on the U.S. Senate; Sean Theriault
    3. The Weaponization of Congressional Oversight: The Politics of the
    Watchful Eye, 1947-2010; David C.W. Parker and Matthew Dull
    4. Party Polarization, Member Incivility, and Legislative
    Productivity: A Two-Dimensional Perspective on Conflict and
    Moderation in Congress; Lawrence C. Dodd and Scot Schraufnagel
    5. Let's Play Hardball: Congressional Partisanship in the Television
    Era; Douglas Harris
    6. Profile Politics: Examining Polarization through Congressional
    Member Facebook Pages; José Marichal
    7. Necessary and Damaging: Presidential Base Electoral Strategies
    and Partisan Polarization; Lara Brown
    8. A Polarizing Supreme Court? Judicial Decisions in a Red/Blue
    America; Kevin J. McMahon
    PART II: BRIDGING THE PARTISAN DIVIDE
    9. Growing Apart: 'Civilista' Attempts to Bridge the Partisan Rift;
    Frank Mackaman
    10. Can Polarization be Mitigated? California's Experiment with the
    Top-Two Primary; Seth Masket
    11. How to Turn Democrats and Republicans into Americans; Mickey Edwards

I was a the Cal. State Channel Islands event from which these papers are 
drawn.  Highly recommended.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57439&title=%E2%80%9CPolitics%20to%20the%20Extreme%3A%20American%20Political%20Institutions%20in%20the%20Twenty-First%20Century%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in legislation and legislatures 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>, lobbying 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>, political parties 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, political polarization 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>


    "Americans for Responsible Leadership Wholly Funded by Koch-Linked
    Group" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57437>

Posted on December 13, 2013 1:13 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57437>by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

More great reporting 
<http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/12/americans-for-responsible-leadership-wholly-funded-by-koch-linked-group.html>from 
Open Secrets.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57437&title=%E2%80%9CAmericans%20for%20Responsible%20Leadership%20Wholly%20Funded%20by%20Koch-Linked%20Group%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law 
and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>


    Is Blagojevich's Conviction Going to Get Overturned by 7th Circuit?
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57435>

Posted on December 13, 2013 1:09 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57435>by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Sure sounds like it 
<http://www.suntimes.com/24350376-761/appellate-judges-lob-tough-questions-about-blagojevich-prosecution.html>.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57435&title=Is%20Blagojevich%E2%80%99s%20Conviction%20Going%20to%20Get%20Overturned%20by%207th%20Circuit%3F&description=>
Posted in bribery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>, chicanery 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


    "Fairfax Shows Transparency Done Right in #VAAG Recount"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57433>

Posted on December 13, 2013 7:59 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57433>by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Open Virginia Law blogs 
<http://www.openvirginialaw.com/2013/12/fairfax-transparency-in-vaag-recount/>.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57433&title=%E2%80%9CFairfax%20Shows%20Transparency%20Done%20Right%20in%20%23VAAG%20Recount%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, 
political polarization <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>, recounts 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=50>


    Lessig Distances Himself from Represent.Us on "Corruption" and
    Campaign Finance Reform <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57430>

Posted on December 13, 2013 7:54 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57430>by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Regular readers know of my concerns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57127> about 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57262>how Represent.Us is trying to both 
sell its campaign finance reform plan as "anti-corruption" and confusion 
over whether the group means old style corruption or Lessig's 
"dependence corruption" (which I see as a a kind of equality 
argument--though Larry doesn't).

Today Larry posted this piece 
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/13/congress-can-be-corrupt-without-corrupt-people.html> 
in the/Daily Beast/, which includes the following:

    Represent.US <https://represent.us/> is an activist organization
    fighting corruption in Washington. It has created (with the help of
    Trevor Potter <http://www.capdale.com/tpotter>, a Republican, and
    former Chairman of the FEC, Jack Abramoff
    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff>,  a Republican and
    former lobbyist, and me, a former Republican, with the word "former"
    strongly emphasized) the American Anti-Corruption Act
    <http://anticorruptionact.org/>, perhaps the most ambitious reform
    proposal to address the "corruption" in Washington in a hundred years.

    But what is the "corruption" that the AA Act means to reform? Though
    at times, Represent.US has followed the McCain line---attacking the
    system of corruption that has evolved within DC---in its most recent
    work, the group has become positively McConnell-esque---except that
    unlike McConnell, Represent.US actually believes there is widespread
    corruption in the quid pro quo sense, while McConnell (and I for
    that matter) believe there is not.

    Congressman Jim Himes <http://himes.house.gov/> (D-CT) is
    Represent.US's latest target. This former Goldman Sachs partner has
    frustrated many progressives by working hard to deregulate Wall
    Street. In a completely tasteless online ad
    <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWnJr_amf_A&noredirect=1> sponsored
    by Represent.US, a fake lobbyist approaches Himes at an event
    carrying a bag full of cash. He opens his conversation by thanking
    Himes for "taking the lead" on the Wall Street deregulation bills.
    Himes responds that "Well, I don't hear that often." But then the
    fake lobbyist "accidentally" spills wads of cash onto the floor.
    Himes, appropriately enough, walks away from the fake lobbyist
    without saying a word. Security quickly escorts the fake lobbyist
    out of the event.

    This ad is wrong, because its conception of corruption is wrong. Jim
    Himes is not "corrupt" in the sense that McConnell means. He works
    within a corrupt system, in the sense that McCain tried to explain.
    Within that system, members must fund their campaigns in ways that
    certainly destroys the integrity of the system. But this isn't the
    cash-for-favors culture of the Gilded Age. The "system," as McCain
    had explained, certainly destroys the "integrity" of Congress.
    Quoting Webster's, McCain rightly argues that "corruption" means
    "the impairment of integrity, virtue or moral principle." But you
    don't need to allege quid pro quo bribery to prove that the
    "integrity" of Congress has been impaired. What you need are a pair
    of eyes, or a paycheck that doesn't depend upon the survival of the
    existing system.

Now unclear to me: is McCainian "institutional corruption" the same as 
"dependence corruption"/equality or is it something else entirely?

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57430&title=Lessig%20Distances%20Himself%20from%20Represent.Us%20on%20%E2%80%9CCorruption%E2%80%9D%20and%20Campaign%20Finance%20Reform&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


    "Special elections: They mostly just waste money"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57428>

Posted on December 13, 2013 7:50 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57428>by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Great sense 
<http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-levinson-voter-apathy-term-liimits-20131213,0,4219430.story#axzz2nN2JrSQU> 
from Jessica Levinson in the /LA Times./

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57428&title=%E2%80%9CSpecial%20elections%3A%20They%20mostly%20just%20waste%20money%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


    Payment by the Signature Figures into Nassau County Police Scandal
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57426>

Posted on December 13, 2013 7:46 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57426>by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT. 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/nyregion/nassau-police-leader-resigns-after-inquiry-into-an-arrest.html>

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57426&title=Payment%20by%20the%20Signature%20Figures%20into%20Nassau%20County%20Police%20Scandal&description=>
Posted in petition signature gathering <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=39>


    Hey, I'm Now a Member of the Scholars Strategy Network
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57424>

Posted on December 13, 2013 7:45 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57424>by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Check it out. <http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/scholar-profile/416>

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57424&title=Hey%2C%20I%E2%80%99m%20Now%20a%20Member%20of%20the%20Scholars%20Strategy%20Network&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


    "Tempers Flare as New Rules Strain Senate"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57422>

Posted on December 13, 2013 7:41 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57422>by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/us/politics/senate-confirms-georgetown-law-professor-to-powerful-appeals-court.html?hp&_r=1&> 
on the post-nuclear Senate.

It actually does not seem as bad to me as the apocalyptic predictions, 
but we are only at the beginning.

And who knows if Republicans will blow up the rest of the filibuster 
when they are next in the majority with a Republican president?

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57422&title=%E2%80%9CTempers%20Flare%20as%20New%20Rules%20Strain%20Senate%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in legislation and legislatures 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>, political parties 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, political polarization 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>


    "SEC's Non-Decision Decision on Corporate Political Activity a
    Policy and Political Mistake" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57420>

Posted on December 13, 2013 7:38 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57420>by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

John Coates 
<http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2013/12/13/secs-non-decision-decision-on-corporate-political-activity-a-policy-and-political-mistake/>:

    The SEC's recent decision to take disclosure of political activities
    off the SEC's agenda is a policy mistake, as it ignores the best
    research on the point, described below, and perpetuates a key
    loophole in the investor-relevant disclosure rules, allowing large
    companies to omit material information about the politically
    inflected risks they run with other people's money. It is also a
    political mistake, as it repudiates the 600,000+ investors who have
    written to the SEC personally to ask it to adopt a rule requiring
    such disclosure, and will let entrenched business interests focus
    their lobbying solely on watering down regulation mandated under the
    Dodd-Frank Act and the 2012 securities law statute, rather than
    having also to work to influence a disclosure regime.

    The connection between political activity and investor concerns is
    directly reflected in the /Wall Street Journal'/s own editorializing
    on the topic, e.g., here
    <http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303734204577468443488066430>,
    where the /WSJ/ repeats one study's finding that political activity
    can increase shareholder returns by 2 to 5% per year. The /WSJ/ does
    not acknowledge that other studies reach different
    conclusions---that political activity can be harmful, and its
    effects vary significantly from firm to firm and over time---but
    regardless of which study's results are correct, the materiality of
    such activity to shareholders is clear, even by the lights of the /WSJ/.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57420&title=%E2%80%9CSEC%E2%80%99s%20Non-Decision%20Decision%20on%20Corporate%20Political%20Activity%20a%20Policy%20and%20Political%20Mistake%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


    Election Law Journal 12:4 --- The Law of Deliberative Democracy
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57409>

Posted on December 13, 2013 7:17 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57409>by Dan Tokaji 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=5>

The new issue of Election Law Journal is now out 
<http://online.liebertpub.com/toc/elj/12/4>. It features a symposium on 
the Law of Deliberative Democracy, guest co-edited by Ron Levy and 
Graeme Orr. The table of contents appears below:

    The Party Line: Crossing Boundaries, by Daniel P. Tokaji & Paul Gronke

    *SYMPOSIUM*

    The Law of Deliberative Democracy: Seeding the Field, by Ron Levy

    *ARTICLES*

    *Deliberating About Rules*
    Deliberate About, Not In, Elections, by Dennis F. Thompson
    Deliberative Democracy and Electoral Management Bodies: The Case of
    Australian Electoral Commissions, by Joo-Cheong Tham

    *Deliberating in Elections*
    Second-Best Deliberative Democracy and Election Law, by Yasmin Dawood
    Deliberation and Electoral Law, by Graeme Orr
    Deliberation and Mass Media Communication in Election Campaigns, by
    Jacob Rowbottom
    Deliberative Democracy and Compulsory Voting, by Lisa Hill
    The Incompatible Treatment of Majorities in Election Law and
    Deliberative Democracy, by James A. Gardner

    *Popular Deliberation*
    Deliberation by the People Themselves: Entry Points for the Public
    Voice, by James Fishkin
    Using Electoral Law to Construct a Deliberative Referendum: Moving
    Beyond the Democratic Paradox, by Stephen Tierney
    Worth Talking About?: Modest Constitutional Amendment and Citizen
    Deliberation in Australia, by Paul Kildea

This is my last issue as co-editor. Paul Gronke will be sole editor for 
Volume 13. The next issue of ELJ, guest 
co-edited by Michael Halberstam, will focus on lobbying and campaign 
finance <http://baldycenter.info/conferences/lobbying-and-campaign/>.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57409&title=Election%20Law%20Journal%2012%3A4%20%E2%80%94%20The%20Law%20of%20Deliberative%20Democracy&description=>
Posted in election law biz <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>


    "North Carolina voting changes to go on trial in 2015?
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57407>

Posted on December 12, 2013 8:43 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57407>by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Reuters reports 
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/13/us-usa-northcarolina-voting-idUSBRE9BB19120131213>.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57407&title=%E2%80%9CNorth%20Carolina%20voting%20changes%20to%20go%20on%20trial%20in%202015%E2%80%B3&description=>
Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, 
The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, Voting Rights Act 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


    "New Obama Advisor Brings Corporate Ties"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57404>

Posted on December 12, 2013 8:21 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57404>by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/us/politics/new-obama-adviser-brings-corporate-ties.html?ref=politics>: 
"Mr. Podesta, named a senior adviser to President Obama, is not 
currently a lobbyist and therefore does not have to worry about the 
Obama administration's self-imposed ban on hiring lobbyists to 
administration jobs. But he will nonetheless arrive at the White House 
after having run an organization [, the Center for American Progress,] 
that has taken millions of dollars in corporate donations in recent 
years and has its own team of lobbyists who have pushed an agenda that 
sometimes echoes the interests of these corporate supporters."

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57404&title=%E2%80%9CNew%20Obama%20Advisor%20Brings%20Corporate%20Ties%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in conflict of interest laws 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>, lobbying 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>

-- 
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://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20131214/45a94186/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/20131214/45a94186/attachment.png>


View list directory