[EL] ELB News and Commentary 2/19/13

Rick Hasen rhasen at law.uci.edu
Mon Feb 18 20:08:23 PST 2013


    Big Campaign Finance Day Tuesday? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47425>

Posted on February 18, 2013 8:05 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47425> by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

At 9:30 am Eastern Tuesday (when I'll be driving to work), the Supreme 
Court is set to issue its latest set of orders. As I explained in this 
post, <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47328>there's a fair chance the 
Court will agree to hear a case (/McCutcheon/) raising the question of 
the constitutionality of aggregate contribution limits (limiting how 
much an individual can give to federal candidate and party committees in 
a two year period).

A ruling in this case could have important implications not only on the 
issue itself, but on the broader question whether the Court will change 
the standard for judging the constitutionality of limits on 
contributions, an issue the Court expressly declined to address in 
/Citizens United/. It could also lead the Court for the first time to 
overrule a portion of the key 1976 case, /Buckley v. Valeo./

Stay tuned.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47425&title=Big%20Campaign%20Finance%20Day%20Tuesday%3F&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | 
Comments Off


    "County clerk's office tells of possible campaign problems in
    Cicero" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47422>

Posted on February 18, 2013 7:50 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47422> by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Chicago Tribune 
<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-cicero-election-harassment-20130219,0,3428718.story>: 
"Allegations such as voters being offered pizza coupons and campaign 
workers insisting on handling mail-in ballots for town residents have 
sprung up in Cicero as the heated race for town president heads into its 
final week. The Cook County clerk's office has notified law enforcement 
officials, including the state's attorney's office and the U.S. 
Department of Justice, of such allegations and other claims of voter 
intimidation and voter fraud in the western suburb."

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47422&title=%E2%80%9CCounty%20clerk%E2%80%99s%20office%20tells%20of%20possible%20campaign%20problems%20in%20Cicero%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in absentee ballots <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>, 
chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, vote buying 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=43> | Comments Off


    "G.A.B. Releases Final Report on Election Day Registration"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47418>

Posted on February 18, 2013 3:58 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47418> by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Press release <http://gab.wi.gov/node/2758>: "MADISON, WI -- Eliminating 
Election Day voter registration in Wisconsin would cost taxpayers 
between $13.1 million and $14.5 million, according to a staff report 
released today by the Government Accountability Board."

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47418&title=%E2%80%9CG.A.B.%20Releases%20Final%20Report%20on%20Election%20Day%20Registration%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, 
The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter registration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37> | Comments Off


    "How should the San Antonio court proceed after SCOTUS rules on
    Section 5?" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47415>

Posted on February 18, 2013 10:23 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47415> by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Kuff writes. 
<http://blog.chron.com/kuffsworld/2013/02/how-should-the-san-antonio-court-proceed-after-scotus-rules-on-section-5/>

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47415&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20should%20the%20San%20Antonio%20court%20proceed%20after%20SCOTUS%20rules%20on%20Section%205%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting 
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off


    "GOP chair: Vote fraud will be prosecuted"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47413>

Posted on February 18, 2013 10:23 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47413> by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The /Cincinnati Enquirer/ reports. 
<http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201302170522/NEWS0106/302170064&nclick_check=1>

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47413&title=%E2%80%9CGOP%20chair%3A%20Vote%20fraud%20will%20be%20prosecuted%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, election 
administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off


    "Congressional staffers often travel on tabs of foreign governments"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47410>

Posted on February 17, 2013 7:52 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47410> by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congressional-staffers-often-travel-on-tabs-of-foreign-governments/2013/02/17/25e39938-7625-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_story.html>:

    More and more foreign governments are sponsoring such excursions for
    lawmakers and their staffs, though an overhaul of ethics rules
    adopted by Congress five years ago banned them from going on most
    other types of free trips. This overseas travel is often arranged by
    lobbyists for foreign governments, though lobbyists were barred from
    organizing other types of congressional trips out of concern that
    the trips could be used to buy favor.

    The overseas travel is covered by an exemption Congress granted
    itself for trips deemed to be cultural exchanges.

    A Washington Post examination of congressional disclosures revealed
    the extent of this congressional travel for the first time, finding
    that Hill staffers had reported taking 803 such trips in the six
    years ending in 2011. Lawmakers themselves are increasingly
    participating, disclosing 21 trips in 2011, more than double the
    figure in prior years.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47410&title=%E2%80%9CCongressional%20staffers%20often%20travel%20on%20tabs%20of%20foreign%20governments%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in conflict of interest laws 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>, ethics investigations 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=42>, legislation and legislatures 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>, lobbying 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28> | Comments Off


    Adam Liptak Preview of Shelby County Voting Rights Case
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47407>

Posted on February 17, 2013 7:47 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47407> by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Front-page NYT 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/us/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-alabama-countys-challenge-to-voting-rights-act.html?pagewanted=all>.

Oral argument at the Supreme Court is February 27 with an opinion 
expected by the end of the Court's term in June.

And check out the symposium I've organized over at Reuters Opinion on 
What Happens if Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act Falls 
<http://www.reuters.com/subjects/voting-rights>.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47407&title=Adam%20Liptak%20Preview%20of%20Shelby%20County%20Voting%20Rights%20Case&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting 
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off


    "The Federal Common Law of Statutory Interpretation: Erie for the
    Age of Statutes" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47404>

Posted on February 17, 2013 4:04 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47404> by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Abbe Gluck has posted this draft 
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2213901> on SSRN 
(/William & Mary Law Review/). Here is the abstract:

    Modern statutory interpretation is a field dominated by
    court-created legal presumptions. Federal judges have created
    hundreds of default rules that range from subject-specific
    presumptions such as the rule that exemptions in the tax code should
    be narrowly construed to trans-substantive presumptions such as the
    presumption that ambiguous statutes should not be interpreted to
    preempt state law. At the same time, the legal status of statutory
    interpretation methodology remains almost completely unexplored.
    What are the rules of statutory interpretation? Almost all jurists
    and scholars resist the notion that they are "law," despite their
    judicial source and also despite the fact that analogous
    interpretive principles like those from contract and constitutional
    law are, in fact, treated as some kind of law (be it state law,
    federal common law, "constitutional common law," or constitutional
    law); and despite the fact also that even some statutory
    interpretation rules --- notably Chevron and the thousands of
    legislated rules of statutory construction scattered across the U.S.
    Code --- are already treated as law without justification for the
    distinction. Meanwhile, the debate that continues to rage in other
    contexts over the propriety of federal judicial lawmaking has
    somehow bypassed the world of statutory interpretation.

    The resistance to a law-like treatment of interpretive methodology
    has many possible explanations, including a judicial desire to
    retain power or flexibility in an increasingly statutory world, or
    the simple fact that judges cannot reach consensus on what rules
    they would treat as law in the first place. The resistance also
    likely stems from the long shadow that Erie has cast on federal
    judicial lawmaking. But Erie was case for the world of common law,
    not one for the Age of Statutes. We had Erie, and then we had
    Chevron, but along the way we had no analogous case for the
    statutory era --- one that directly addresses what kind of authority
    federal courts have to create decision-making doctrines for the
    statutory cases that now dominate the docket

    Exploring this possibility --- that statutory interpretation
    methodology is some kind of judge-made law --- allows for some
    significant interventions. A common-law conceptualization of
    interpretive methodology, for instance, implies that Congress can
    legislate over it, but courts continue to resist that notion. A
    law-like conceptualization also would seem to imply that the rules
    of interpretation should receive stare decisis effect, which they
    currently do not. There is also the possibility that some of the
    canons might be federal common law, while others might not. Some,
    for example, might be understood as constitutional law, while others
    may seem not to be judicial creations at all. The canons typically
    have not been disaggregated in this manner, despite their centrality
    in countless cases.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47404&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Federal%20Common%20Law%20of%20Statutory%20Interpretation%3A%20Erie%20for%20the%20Age%20of%20Statutes%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in legislation and legislatures 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>, statutory interpretation 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=21>, Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off


    "Redistricting didn't win Republicans the House"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47401>

Posted on February 17, 2013 2:51 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47401> by Rick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

John Sides and Eric McGhee 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/17/redistricting-didnt-win-republicans-the-house/>:

    Neuroscientist and election forecaster Sam Wang recently added
    <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/the-great-gerrymander-of-2012.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>
    fuel to the fire, calling the 2012 outcome "The Great Gerrymander."
    He identified 10 states, most of them controlled by Republicans, as
    notable and egregious deviations from a fair outcome, suggesting
    that gerrymandering cost the Democrats 15 seats in the current House
    of Representatives and calling for redistricting reform to fix the
    problem. Wang's conclusion resembles that of political scientist
    Nicholas Goedert, who suggests
    <http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/11/15/not-gerrymandering-but-districting-more-evidence-on-how-democrats-won-the-popular-vote-but-lost-the-congress/>
    that the 2012 maps cost the Democrats 14 seats.

    Is this right? Has gerrymandering allowed Republicans to defy the
    will of the people? The crucial question
    <http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/12/12/navigating-debates-about-redistricting/>
    to ask when deciding whether redistricting "mattered" is: compared
    to what? What is the alternative set of districts---the
    "counterfactual"---to which you're comparing the current districts?
    Once we consider some other alternatives, these claims about
    gerrymandering aren't as strong as they first appear.

An important piece, with some great accompanying charts and data.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D47401&title=%E2%80%9CRedistricting%20didn%E2%80%99t%20win%20Republicans%20the%20House%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> | 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130218/ea9b5e6c/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/20130218/ea9b5e6c/attachment.png>


View list directory