[EL] electoral college and campaigns
Rob Richie
rr at fairvote.org
Wed Jan 9 09:30:11 PST 2013
While we can't know how the 2000 election would have gone with a national
popular vote, we in fact can make reasonably safe projections of outcomes
in presidential elections where electoral votes are allocated by district.
Anyone suggesting otherwise is behind the times in understanding the impact
of having even a relatively slight partisan advantage in a district or
state -- or suggesting without evidence that presidential candidates have a
greater ability to overcome partisan disadvantages in a congressional
district than in statewide elections when I suspect the opposite is true
(states are more diverse and give you more targets for increasing your
vote).
Therefore it indeed is highly likely that Romney would have won the
presidential election if all states in 2012 had followed Curtis Gans'
advice and allocated electoral votes by congressional district. It's even
more certain that Romney would have won if Virginia state senator Charles
Carrico's plan to allocate electoral votes by district and give the two
statewide electors to the candidate who won the most districts had been in
place in the swing states controlled by Republicans-- a change that, if in
place by 2016, would make the entire election hinge on the Democrat
nominee's ability to win a state (like Georgia or Arizona) that Romney won
by at least 7% this year. (And Republicans may be tempted because of the
Democratic edge in the current state-by-state winner-take-all system,
although I of course hope they instead go to the level playing field
represented by the National Popular Vote plan.)
Rick says below that he studying polarization in our elections. Those
studying the issue cannot escape the implications of how few true swing
voters now exist in competitive partisan elections and how that fact makes
relatively small leans in partisanship the dominant feature -- nearly
always far more so than money or qualities of the individual candidate,
although incumbent history still matters.
The fact that median congressional district is one with a 52% to 48%
Republican lean -- a lean that is grounded in the same demographics that
meant that Barack Obama this year won only 22% of counties, far fewer than
Michael Dukakis won when losing badly to Bush in 1988 -- creates a partisan
bias in congressional elections that is far more pronounced in its impact
than even just a few years ago. Then, "blue dog" Democrats in the South
could still win in Republican-leaning districts. Until center-right
Democrat challengers can have that kind of success again -- and the 2012
election showed absolutely no sign of it -- then Republicans are very
secure in their House majority and will have a huge edge in presidential
votes by district.
Here are just a few examples of the power of partisanship:
- In 2010, in a year, in which the underlying preference among voters was
54% to 46% for Republicans in House races, they did not gain a single new
House seat in a district where Obama had secured at least 5% above his
national average in 2008 (and in fact Republicans lsot two of the three
seats they had held in that grouping and lost the third last year).
- In 2012, neither party picked up a new seat in the 175 districts where
their presidential candidate in 2008 had performed least well.
- In 2012, Republicans won just a single seat in a district where Obama had
run better than 2% above his national average in 2008 -- and that district
was the bizarre "Top two"-generated outcome in California-31 where only two
Republicans advanced over a divided Democratic vote in June
- In 2011--2012, we saw much evidence of such trends in state legislative
elections as well. Consider that New Jersey has 40 state legislative
districts created by a commission, each electing two state representatives
and one state senator – and in 2011 one party swept all three seats in all
but one district. In North Carolina’s elections for 120 state house seats
in 2012, only two candidates won in a district where their party didn’t
have a partisan edge (Democrats in a 51% Republican district and a 54%
Republican district -- wit Democrats not able to win a majority of seats
unless winning every seat up past a 56% Republican district).
Finally, to be absolutely clear, anyone suggesting that the country should
allocate electoral votes by congressional district is suggesting that
having a party earn a disproportionate share of its vote come from urban
areas is somehow illegitimate and that Democratic nominees therefore should
lose very nationally close election. Furthermore, suggesting it's a good
thing also opens the door to the kind of extreme partisan attacks on
presidential elections that I explain in a recent piece cited by the
National Review piece to which Rick lins - a link to that piece and a
couple others on partisanship are pasted in here:
http://www.fairvote.org/electoral-college-chaos-how-republicans-could-put-a-lock-on-the-presidency
http://www.fairvote.org/clashing-mandates-and-the-role-of-voting-structures
http://www.fairvote.org/it-s-not-just-gerrymandering-fixing-house-elections-demands-end-of-winner-take-all-rules
I would be happy to engage with folks off-line about why I think this makes
the case for the National Popular Vote plan for president and fair voting
alternatives <http://www.fairvoting.us>to winner-take-all legislative
districts particularly compelling.
- Rob Richie
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
> Thanks Sean. As a reminder for the new year , if anyone responds to
> something in particular from the ELB news and commentary, please change the
> subject title to something more specific (as I just did).
>
> On 1/9/13 8:34 AM, Sean Parnell wrote:
>
> Rick is exactly right in regards “How Romney Could Have Won.” I recall
> hearing that George W. Bush, asked after the 2000 election was settled in
> his favor whether it was fair that he was President even though he received
> fewer votes than Al Gore, said something along the lines of: We ran our
> campaign under the rules as they were, if the rules instead were that you
> had to get the most votes nationally then I would have spent a lot more
> time in Texas and Georgia getting out the vote.****
>
> ** **
>
> I don’t have a link or cite to this, and it could very well be apocryphal.
> But the insight attributed to Bush here is pretty obviously correct – had
> the rules been different in the past, then the vote totals (and potentially
> the outcomes as well) would have been much different. There’s no particular
> reason to believe that Al Gore would have won the most votes nationally in
> 2000 under different rules, just as there’s no particular reason to believe
> we wouldn’t have President John Kerry completing his second term this month
> if different rules had been in place in 2004.****
>
> ** **
> “How Romney Could Have Won” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45994> ****
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 8:07 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45994> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> National Review<http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337076/how-romney-could-have-won-katrina-trinko>:
> “If votes in every state were awarded by congressional district,
> President-elect Romney would be planning his inauguration right now.”****
>
> That strikes me as overly simplistic: if voting took place on a district
> by district basis, the campaigns would have focused their efforts much
> differently.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Sean Parnell****
>
> President****
>
> Impact Policy Management, LLC****
>
> 6411 Caleb Court****
>
> Alexandria, VA 22315****
>
> 571-289-1374 (c)****
>
> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
> mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>]
> *On Behalf Of *Rick Hasen
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 09, 2013 12:00 AM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] ELB News and Commentary 1/9/13****
>
> ** **
> “Is America Governable?” Conference at UT Austin Jan. 24-26<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46027>
> ****
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 8:54 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46027> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> I’m really looking forward to participating in this symposium<https://www.utexas.edu/law/conferences/governable/>organized by Sandy Levinson (see the
> schedule <https://www.utexas.edu/law/conferences/governable/sessions/>and list
> of participants<https://www.utexas.edu/law/conferences/governable/participants/>).
> Here’s the general description:****
>
> Pundits and political figures across the political spectrum now regularly
> refer to the United States government–and to some of its state governments
> as well–as “dysfunctional” or even “pathological,” with serious questions
> raised as to whether the United States in the 21st century can even be
> described as “governable.” No doubt the answer depends on what one expects
> from government. If the only test is, for example, continuing to pay debts
> owed by the United States or not willfully falling off “fiscal cliffs,”
> then perhaps the answer is yes, though one commentator has compared this
> standard as the equivalent of a parent proudly proclaiming of a child that
> “he has remained out of prison.” Should “governability” be defined as the
> ability to confront a host of challenges facing us in the contemporary
> world, the answer might be less optimistic.****
>
> The weekend after the inauguration of President Barack Obama for his final
> term in office is a propitious time for confronting basic questions about
> the health of the American political system. The symposium brings together
> a remarkable array of scholars across many disciplines, persons with a
> variety of high-level political experience, and eminent journalists to
> discuss these and other questions of vital relevance to every American (or
> person affected by decisions made by American governments).****
>
> Political polarization and the law has become one of my main research
> interests these days. So far I’ve written Fixing Washington<http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/126/december12/Book_Review_9410.php>,
> 126 Harvard Law Review 550 (2012) (Larry Lessig reply<http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/126/december12/forum_983.php>)
> and End of the Dialogue? Political Polarization, the Supreme Court, and
> Congress <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2130190>, 86
> Southern California Law Review (forthcoming 2013).****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D46027&title=%E2%80%9CIs%20America%20Governable%3F%E2%80%9D%20Conference%20at%20UT%20Austin%20Jan.%2024-26&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>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
> | Comments Off ****
> “Rhode Island Likely to Lose a House Seat”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46024>
> ****
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 8:39 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46024> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> NYT<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/us/politics/shrinking-rhode-island-likely-to-lose-house-seat.html?ref=politics&_r=0>:
> “It may seem early to be thinking about the redistribution of House seats
> that will take place after the Census in 2020, but one state, Rhode Island,
> is being forced to because its population is declining.”****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D46024&title=%E2%80%9CRhode%20Island%20Likely%20to%20Lose%20a%20House%20Seat%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in legislation and legislatures<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>,
> voting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31> | Comments Off ****
> “Blowing the Whistle on the Pay-to-Play Game: Campaign Financing Reform
> in New Jersey, 1998-2012″ <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46021> ****
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 7:42 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46021> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> ****
>
> Rachel Jackson of Princeton has written this case study<http://www.princeton.edu/successfulsocieties/content/superfocusareas/traps/PP/policynotes/view.xml?id=221>.
> Here is the abstract:****
>
> ABSTRACT: In the late 1990s, civil society reformer Harry Pozycki began a
> grassroots campaign to eliminate pay to play, a form of influence buying
> whereby businesses donated money to New Jersey political parties and
> candidates in exchange for favorable consideration in the awarding of
> government contracts. Pay to play had plagued state politics for decades
> and raised the cost of public services. Pozycki pushed for enactment of
> contracting regulations at the state and local levels that would bar
> companies making campaign contributions from being awarded New Jersey
> government contracts. Although civic groups did make steady progress in
> winning public support for reform, the state legislature failed to pass
> regulations because both political parties relied heavily on donations from
> contractors to fund their electoral campaigns. But in 2004, outgoing
> Governor James E. McGreevey implemented the regulations by executive order,
> and his successor, Richard J. Codey, carried forward that momentum, thereby
> enacting a state law that made the regulations permanent. The state and
> local pay-to-play reforms ultimately required very little administrative
> cost and avoided legal complications related to free speech by their
> regulation of state contracts rather than of campaign financing. By 2006,
> New Jersey had one of the strongest anti-pay-to-play laws in the United
> States, and several other states followed its model. Under two successive
> governors, New Jersey continued to consider the legislation and make
> changes to it through the end of 2012.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D46021&title=%E2%80%9CBlowing%20the%20Whistle%20on%20the%20Pay-to-Play%20Game%3A%20Campaign%20Financing%20Reform%20in%20New%20Jersey%2C%201998-2012%E2%80%B3&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
> | Comments Off ****
> Forum on “The Voting Wars” at Cardozo law Feb. 11<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46018>
> ****
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 1:16 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46018> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Cardozo Law School’s Foersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy is
> putting on this event<http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/MemberContentDisplay.aspx?ccmd=ContentDisplay&ucmd=UserDisplay&userid=10374&contentid=25758&folderid=340>Feb. 11 at noon:
> ****
>
> The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown, a
> discussion with the author ****
>
> 2/11/2013****
>
> 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm****
>
> Richard L. Hasen, Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at
> the University of California, Irvine, will discuss and respond to
> commentary about his recent book, *The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to
> the Next Election Meltdown*. Professor Hasen is a well-known expert in
> the field of election law, having co-founded the *Election Law Journal*and published more than eighty articles in the field.
> ****
>
> Commenting on Professor Hasen’s book will be election law Professors Janai
> S. Nelson, from St. John’s University School of Law; Richard Briffault,
> from Columbia Law School; and Mark C. Alexander, from Seton Hall Law
> School. Professor Alexander is currently running for the New Jersey Senate.
> ****
>
> The panel will be moderated by Professor Michelle Adams.****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D46018&title=Forum%20on%20%E2%80%9CThe%20Voting%20Wars%E2%80%9D%20at%20Cardozo%20law%20Feb.%2011&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off ****
> “Why ‘gerrymandering’ doesn’t polarise Congress the way we’re told”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46015>
> ****
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 11:52 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46015>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Harry Enten writes<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/03/gerrymandering-polarise-congress>for
> * The Guardian*.****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D46015&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20%E2%80%98gerrymandering%E2%80%99%20doesn%E2%80%99t%20polarise%20Congress%20the%20way%20we%E2%80%99re%20told%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> | Comments Off ****
> “DISCLOSE Act Causes Less Disclosure”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46013>
> ****
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 11:51 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46013>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Eric Wang has written this Roll Call oped<http://www.rollcall.com/news/wang_disclose_act_causes_less_disclosure-220517-1.html?zkPrintable=true>
> .****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D46013&title=%E2%80%9CDISCLOSE%20Act%20Causes%20Less%20Disclosure%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off ****
> “Curbing Campaign Cash: Henry Ford, Truman Newberry, and the Politics
> of Progressive Reform” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46010> ****
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 11:43 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46010>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Paula Baker’s new book <http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/bakcur.html>:****
>
> In the 1918 Michigan race for the U.S. Senate, auto tycoon Henry Ford
> faced off against a less well-known industrialist, Truman Newberry. Bent on
> countering Ford’s fame and endorsement from President Wilson, Newberry’s
> campaign spent an extravagant amount, in fact much more than the law seemed
> to allow. This led to
> his conviction under the Federal Corrupt Practices Act―but also to his
> eventual exoneration in the first campaign finance case to be decided by
> the U.S. Supreme Court. In *Newberry v. United States* the Court ruled
> that Congress had no jurisdiction to regulate primary elections, a
> controversial decision that allowed southern states to create whites-only
> primaries and stalled campaign finance reform.****
>
> In the first book in eight decades on this initial test of federal
> campaign finance regulations, Paula Baker examines this case study of state
> and local campaign spending to describe how politicians found their footing
> in an environment created by progressive reform and invented modern
> campaigns. Through this seminal election, she pries apart two persistent
> strains in American political culture: suspicion of money in politics and
> suspicion of politics itself.****
>
> In reexamining the story of the 1918 election, Baker takes a broad view of
> the history of the political reform to probe some of the foundational
> arguments about why money in politics sometimes seems so corrupt. She
> follows the controversy as it unfolded―beginning with progressive reform of
> politics and the remaking of campaigns―then takes readers through the
> shifting scenes, from Detroit to Washington, where the Ford-Newberry
> conflict played out.****
>
> Baker reexamines the political divisions between conservatives and
> progressive reformers to reveal contradictions in how Progressive Era
> federal finance regulations worked, with efforts to weaken the power of
> political parties and democratize politics actually making campaigns more
> expensive. And although the law opened the door to partisan prosecutions
> for spending, Congress remained unwilling to craft legislation that
> actually curbed spending.****
>
> While legislation in recent decades largely has aimed at contributions
> rather than spending and the Supreme Court has weighed whether specific
> limits abridge free speech, Progressive Era ideas about money and politics
> continue to guide campaign finance reform. *Curbing Campaign Cash*provides a compelling new account of a key chapter in the history of this
> issue.****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D46010&title=%E2%80%9CCurbing%20Campaign%20Cash%3A%20%20Henry%20Ford%2C%20Truman%20Newberry%2C%20and%20the%20Politics%20of%20Progressive%20Reform%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off ****
> “The Political Speech of Charities in the Face of Citizens United: A
> Defense of Prohibition” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46007> ****
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 11:33 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46007>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Roger Colinvaux has posted this paper<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1726407>on SSRN (
> *Case Western Reserve Law Review*). Here is the abstract:****
>
> The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election
> Commission makes a Supreme Court challenge to the tax law rule that
> prohibits charities from involvement in political activities more likely,
> and a reexamination of the political speech of charities necessary. Part I
> of the Article surveys the history of the political activities prohibition
> in order to emphasize that it was not a reactionary policy but quite
> considered, and that there are strong State interests supporting it,
> including protection of the definition of charity from further dilution.
> Part II of the Article analyzes Citizens United in detail and argues that
> if the Supreme Court considers a challenge to the political activities
> prohibition, Citizens United is distinguishable: the purpose of the
> political activities prohibition is not to suppress speech but to define
> charity; the legal setting is tax and not campaign finance; unlike the
> campaign finance rule, violation of the political activities prohibition is
> not criminal; and the political activities prohibition is by nature a rule
> associated with a tax status rather than a ban on corporate speech.
> Accordingly, the political activities prohibition, unlike the campaign
> finance rule, is not a burden on speech and therefore is constitutional.
> Part III of the Article discusses cautionary notes to the analysis of Part
> II, and explains that even if there is a constitutional defect to the
> political activities prohibition, the political activities limitation on
> the charitable deduction nonetheless would survive. Regardless of the
> constitutionality of the political activities prohibition, Part IV examines
> a number of possibilities for a charitable tax status in which political
> activity is allowed, and argues that the current rule is the best option.
> The Article concludes that the prohibition represents the evolution of a
> century of wrestling with the subject of political activity and charity,
> and the wisdom that the two are not compatible. Such wisdom should not be
> contravened.****
>
> ****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D46007&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Political%20Speech%20of%20Charities%20in%20the%20Face%20of%20Citizens%20United%3A%20A%20Defense%20of%20Prohibition%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law
> and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> | Comments Off ****
> “Everyone’s Fight: The New Plan to Defeat Big Money”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46005>
> ****
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 11:27 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46005>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, has published this symposium,<http://www.democracyjournal.org/27/everyones-fight.php>including:
> ****
>
> *An Open Letter to Patriotic Philanthropists*<http://www.democracyjournal.org/27/an-open-letter-to-patriotic-philanthropists.php>by Bill Moyers & Arnold Hiatt
> ****
>
> *Curing Philanthropy’s Blind Spot: One Percent for Democracy*<http://www.democracyjournal.org/27/curing-philanthropys-blind-spot-one-percent-for-democracy.php>by Nick Penniman & Ian Simmons
> ****
>
> *Nonpolitical? No Such Thing Today*<http://www.democracyjournal.org/27/nonpolitical-no-such-thing-today.php>by Wendell Potter
> ****
>
> *How Big Money Corrupts the Budget*<http://www.democracyjournal.org/27/how-big-money-corrupts-the-budget.php>by Stan Collender
> ****
>
> *How Big Money Corrupts the Economy*<http://www.democracyjournal.org/27/how-big-money-corrupts-the-economy.php>by Jacob S. Hacker and Nathaniel Loewentheil
> ****
>
> *Campaign Finance: Remedies Beyond the Court*<http://www.democracyjournal.org/27/campaign-finance-remedies-beyond-the-court.php>by Trevor Potter and Bryson B. Morgan
> ****
>
> *Building a Permanent Majority for Reform*<http://www.democracyjournal.org/27/building-a-permanent-majority-for-reform.php>by Russ Feingold
> ****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D46005&title=%E2%80%9CEveryone%E2%80%99s%20Fight%3A%20The%20New%20Plan%20to%20Defeat%20Big%20Money%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off ****
> “Texas redistricting appeal not relisted for this Friday”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46002>
> ****
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 11:10 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46002>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Waiting on Shelby County<http://txredistricting.org/post/40023541668/texas-redistricting-appeal-not-relisted-for-this-friday>?
> It wouldn’t surprise me. It would be a lot of work to decide the Texas
> redistricting case, and the case would be moot if the Supreme Court strikes
> down section 5 of the VRA first in *Shelby County*.****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D46002&title=%E2%80%9CTexas%20redistricting%20appeal%20not%20relisted%20for%20this%20Friday%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>,
> redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> | Comments Off ****
> “Early voting in New York easier said than done”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45999>
> ****
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 10:45 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45999>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> See here.<http://poststar.com/news/local/early-voting-in-new-york-easier-said-than-done/article_4a1c8e4c-594a-11e2-841e-0019bb2963f4.html>
> ****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D45999&title=%E2%80%9CEarly%20voting%20in%20New%20York%20easier%20said%20than%20done%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> | Comments
> Off ****
> “Attorney general rivals offer bills to require photo ID to vote”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45996>
> ****
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 8:09 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45996> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> ****
>
> News from Virginia: “A year after controversial voter identification
> legislation passed the Virginia General Assembly, several Republican
> lawmakers are proposing even greater restrictions on the identification
> required to cast a ballot, including the requirement of photo
> identification. Del. Robert B. Bell, R-Albemarle, will introduce what he
> terms “Photo ID ― No Exceptions,” a measure that would require voters to
> present valid government-issued photo identification in order to vote.
> Acquiring the identification would also require proof of U.S. citizenship,
> which the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles requires to obtain
> identification.”****
>
> ****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D45996&title=%E2%80%9CAttorney%20general%20rivals%20offer%20bills%20to%20require%20photo%20ID%20to%20vote%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
> | Comments Off ****
> “How Romney Could Have Won” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45994> ****
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 8:07 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45994> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> National Review<http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337076/how-romney-could-have-won-katrina-trinko>:
> “If votes in every state were awarded by congressional district,
> President-elect Romney would be planning his inauguration right now.”****
>
> That strikes me as overly simplistic: if voting took place on a district
> by district basis, the campaigns would have focused their efforts much
> differently.****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D45994&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20Romney%20Could%20Have%20Won%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, electoral
> college <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=44> | Comments Off ****
> “SEC Moves to Require That Corporations Disclose All Political Spending”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45991>
> ****
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 8:01 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45991> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Press release<http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/pressroomredirect.cfm?ID=3790>:
> “The Corporate Reform Coalition <http://corporatereformcoalition.org/>applauds the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) commitment to seek
> disclosure of all corporate political spending in response to a historic
> demonstration of investor demand for such a rule-making. In one of the last
> actions of departing SEC Chair Mary Schapiro’s term, the agency announced
> that it will consider a proposed rule to require that public companies
> provide disclosure to shareholders regarding the use of corporate resources
> for political activities. A petition requesting this rulemaking was filed
> in 2011 by a bipartisan committee of leading law professors.”****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D45991&title=%E2%80%9CSEC%20Moves%20to%20Require%20That%20Corporations%20Disclose%20All%20Political%20Spending%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off ****
> “Candidate Challenges City Limits On Funding”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45988>
> ****
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 7:59 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45988> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> WSJ<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323482504578228191663513914.html>:
> “New York mayoral candidate George McDonald on Monday filed a lawsuit to
> prevent the city’s Campaign Finance Board from taking enforcement action
> against his campaign for accepting contributions in excess of city limits
> and a loan that is prohibited by city law.”****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D45988&title=%E2%80%9CCandidate%20Challenges%20City%20Limits%20On%20Funding%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off ****
>
> -- ****
>
> Rick Hasen****
>
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science****
>
> UC Irvine School of Law****
>
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000****
>
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000****
>
> 949.824.3072 - office****
>
> 949.824.0495 - fax****
>
> rhasen at law.uci.edu****
>
> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html****
>
> http://electionlawblog.org****
>
> Now available: The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTv****
>
> ** **
>
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.htmlhttp://electionlawblog.org
> Now available: The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTv
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
Rob Richie
Executive Director
FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
Takoma Park, MD 20912
www.fairvote.org <http://www.fairvote.org> rr at fairvote.org
(301) 270-4616
Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see
http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider a gift
to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's CFC number is
10132.) Thank you!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130109/78ea1537/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130109/78ea1537/attachment.png>
View list directory