[EL] ELB News and Commentary 7/5/13

Rick Hasen rhasen at law.uci.edu
Fri Jul 5 08:23:26 PDT 2013


    "IRS Scrutiny Went Beyond the Political"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52607>

Posted on July 5, 2013 8:21 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52607> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT reports. 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/us/politics/irs-scrutiny-went-beyond-the-political.html?hp&_r=2&>

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52607&title=%E2%80%9CIRS%20Scrutiny%20Went%20Beyond%20the%20Political%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


    "Power from the people: Does the Supreme Court's gay-marriage ruling
    threaten direct democracy?" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52604>

Posted on July 5, 2013 8:19 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52604> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Economist reports. 
<http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21580476-does-supreme-courts-gay-marriage-ruling-threaten-direct-democracy-power>

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52604&title=%E2%80%9CPower%20from%20the%20people%3A%20Does%20the%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%99s%20gay-marriage%20ruling%20threaten%20direct%20democracy%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in direct democracy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62> | 
Comments Off


    "IRS 'BOLOs' raise new questions about political targeting uproar"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52601>

Posted on July 5, 2013 8:16 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52601> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/irs-bolos-raise-new-questions-about-political-targeting-uproar/2013/07/04/e4988482-de77-11e2-b797-cbd4cb13f9c6_story.html>:

    Internal Revenue Service documents showing that the agency might
    have scrutinized politically liberal groups before it
    inappropriately targeted conservative ones intensified debate on
    Capitol Hill last week, leaving the agency and its watchdog
    scrambling to explain themselves.

    The result may be an already embattled IRS that faces even more
    criticism, and an inspector general risking a compromised reputation.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52601&title=%E2%80%9CIRS%20%E2%80%98BOLOs%E2%80%99%20raise%20new%20questions%20about%20political%20targeting%20uproar%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


    Conservatives Criticize Shelby County Reasoning
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52599>

Posted on July 5, 2013 8:14 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52599> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Nina Totenberg 
<http://www.npr.org/2013/07/05/198708325/whose-term-was-it-a-look-back-at-the-supreme-court?sc=tw&cc=share> 
for NPR on the voting rights decision:

    Although the decision was hailed by many /political/ conservatives,
    its reviews from academic and judicial conservatives were
    considerably less admiring.

    Harvard Law professor Charles Fried, a former state Supreme Court
    justice who served as the Reagan administration's advocate in the
    Supreme Court, thought the court's decision was just wrong.

    "Because we're not there yet," he says. "We're not there yet, and
    the facts on the ground in Shelby County itself showed that."

    Stanford's McConnell says the decision's reasoning is just "made up."

    "There's no requirement in the Constitution to treat all states the
    same," he said. "It might be an attractive principle, but it doesn't
    seem to be in the Constitution."

    John McGinnis of Northwestern University Law School agrees,
    suggesting that the court's conservatives let their own policy
    disagreements with Congress trump the clear meaning of the
    Constitution and the post Civil War amendments.

    "I'm sorry to say I think this opinion was as singular a failure as
    I've seen in the history of the Supreme Court," McGinnis said at a
    recent judicial conference.

Much more on Shelby County's reasoning coming up soon.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52599&title=Conservatives%20Criticize%20Shelby%20County%20Reasoning&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments Off


    "Exclusive: Supreme Court's Ginsburg vows to resist pressure to
    retire" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52595>

Posted on July 4, 2013 9:53 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52595> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Big Joan Biskupic scoop 
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/04/us-usa-court-ginsburg-idUSBRE9630C820130704>.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52595&title=%E2%80%9CExclusive%3A%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%99s%20Ginsburg%20vows%20to%20resist%20pressure%20to%20retire%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off


    "Should Republicans Just Focus on White Voters?"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52593>

Posted on July 4, 2013 9:51 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52593> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Interesting 
<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/03/should-republicans-just-focus-on-white-voters/?ref=politics> 
Tom Edsall column.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52593&title=%E2%80%9CShould%20Republicans%20Just%20Focus%20on%20White%20Voters%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in political parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, 
political polarization <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68> | Comments Off


    "How to Capture a Wild Republican"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52590>

Posted on July 3, 2013 7:54 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52590> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/03/nyregion/how-to-capture-a-wild-republican.html>:

    Every mayoral candidate needs 3,750 voter signatures to appear on
    the primary ballot in Sptember. With about 3 million registered
    Democrats in the city, Democratic canvassers can stand on a street
    corner and let the deluge pour forth.

    It is not so easy for Republicans, whose party counts only about
    470,000 registered voters, mostly in enclaves outside Manhattan.
    Republican hopefuls like Mr. Catsimatidis can be so hard-pressed for
    signatures that they make individual appointments with registered
    voters.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52590&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20to%20Capture%20a%20Wild%20Republican%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in ballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>, petition 
signature gathering <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=39> | Comments Off


    "New Texas Voting Disputes" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52587>

Posted on July 3, 2013 5:47 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52587> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

SCOTUSBlog reports. 
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/07/new-texas-voting-disputes/>

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52587&title=%E2%80%9CNew%20Texas%20Voting%20Disputes%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in 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


    What is DOJ Telling Former Section 5 Jurisdictions?
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52583>

Posted on July 3, 2013 12:42 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52583> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Via Ryan J. Reilly: 
<https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/352511940360278019>

    Section 5 submissions

    With respect to administrative submissions under Section 5 of the
    Voting Rights Act, that were pending as of June 25, 2013, or
    received after that date, the Attorney General is providing a
    written response to jurisdictions that advises:

    On June 25, 2013, the United States Supreme Court held that the
    coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.
    1973b(b), as reauthorized by the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization
    and Amendments Act of 2006, is unconstitutional and can no longer be
    used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance under
    Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973c. Shelby County
    v. Holder, 570U.S. ___, 2013 WL 3184629 (U.S. June 25, 2013) (No.
    12-96). Accordingly, no determination will be made under Section 5
    by the Attorney General on the specified change. Procedures for the
    Administration of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 28 C.F.R.
    51.35. We further note that this is not a determination on the
    merits and, therefore, should not be construed as a finding
    regarding whether the specified change complies with any federal
    voting rights law.

    Section 3(c) preclearance

    Shelby County does not affect Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act,
    42 U.S.C. 1973a(c). Jurisdictions covered by a preclearance
    requirement pursuant to court orders under Section 3(c), remain
    subject to the terms of those court orders.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52583&title=What%20is%20DOJ%20Telling%20Former%20Section%205%20Jurisdictions%3F&description=>
Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>, 
Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off


    "The Supreme Court's Voting Rights Act Decision Isn't the Whole
    Problem" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52580>

Posted on July 3, 2013 12:26 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52580> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Armand Derfner 
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/armand-derfner/the-supreme-courts-voting_b_3542384.html>:

    Forty-five years ago, I found myself nervously standing in front of
    Chief Justice Earl Warren, Thurgood Marshall, Hugo Black and the
    other Justices, arguing the first case to apply the newly minted
    Voting Rights Act. Despite my greenness, the Supreme Court ruled in
    favor of the Mississippi voters I represented, saying the Act must
    be interpreted broadly, to further Congress' "noble goal" of ending
    voting discrimination.

    I imagined many possible futures, but none of them led to my sitting
    in the Supreme Court last week listening to Chief Justice John
    Roberts' opinion that the Voting Rights Act is no longer necessary
    --- and is hence unconstitutional --- because we have eradicated
    racism in America. Not just that, but we eradicated racism in just
    the seven short years since the Act's extension in 2006 by huge
    bipartisan majorities in Congress.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52580&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%99s%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20Decision%20Isn%E2%80%99t%20the%20Whole%20Problem%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting 
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off


    "Judicial Minimalism is Alive and Well on the Roberts Court"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52577>

Posted on July 3, 2013 11:58 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52577> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Artemus Ward and J. Mitchell Pickerill have written this commentary 
<http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleSCI.jsp?id=1202609561827&kw=Judicial%20Minimalism%20is%20Alive%20and%20Well%20on%20the%20Roberts%20Court&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&cn=20130703&src=EMC-Email&pt=Supreme%20Court%20Brief%20Headlines&slreturn=20130603145051> 
for NLJ.  It begins:

    The Supreme Court's recent decisions on affirmative action, voting
    rights and gay marriage have sparked a heated debate about
    discrimination in America and the Court's role in deciding the most
    important issues of the day.

    In /Fisher v. Texas /the justices implicitly upheld affirmative
    action and sent the case back to the lower courts to apply the law
    more specifically. In /Shelby County v. Holder /the Court struck
    down one part of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and implicitly invited
    congress to be more specific with the law. In /United States v.
    Windsor /the justices struck down the federal Defense of Marriage
    Act (DOMA) but said that the appellants in /Hollingsworth v. Perry
    /did not have the legal authority to bring the case to the Court.

    While each of these cases was certainly important to the litigants,
    and for the development of the law, they may be more important for
    what they did not do: abolish affirmative action, overturn the VRA,
    and declare a fundamental right to gay marriage.

I strongly disagree 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/opinion/the-chief-justices-long-game.html?_r=0> 
and am writing much more about this.  Stay tuned.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52577&title=%E2%80%9CJudicial%20Minimalism%20is%20Alive%20and%20Well%20on%20the%20Roberts%20Court%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting 
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off


    "RI Assembly passes National Popular Vote bill"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52574>

Posted on July 3, 2013 11:04 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52574> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

See here 
<http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20130702-ri-assembly-passes-national-popular-vote-bill.ece>.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52574&title=%E2%80%9CRI%20Assembly%20passes%20National%20Popular%20Vote%20bill%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in electoral college <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=44> | 
Comments Off


    Major Voting Rights Development: Intervenors Seeks to Have Texas
    Bailed In Under Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act -corrected
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52569>

Posted on July 3, 2013 10:16 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52569> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

This just-filed motion by Defendant Intervenors 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/241-motion-sec-3redux.pdf> in 
the Texas redistricting case is a BFD:

    The State of Texas is undoubtedly the prime example of why at least
    some pre-enforcement review under the Voting Rights Act is still
    necessary to vindicate the voting rights of minority citizens. Texas
    has engaged in persistent and intentional efforts to diminish the
    voting strength of voters of color, and to exclude them from the
    political process. If ever a jurisdiction was deserving of being
    affirmatively subjected to the preclearance requirement (being
    "bailed-in") under Section 3(c) of the Act, Texas is that jurisdiction.

I've been skeptical that Section 3 bail-in can be an effective 
substitute for section 5 preclearance (mainly because it is onerous to 
bring a section 3 suit and most local jurisdictions---where lots of 
mischief can take place, likely won't be subject to a bail-in action). 
But this is an important test case, and the finding of intentional race 
discrimination on Texas's part in the Texas redistricting case gives 
preclearance supporters a fighting chance here.  (For more on how 
Congress could strengthen section 3 bail-in as part of a response to 
/Shelby County/, see Rick Pildes's excellent post <http://t.co/3UzRoJ9E8F>.)

NOTE: This post has been corrected.  An earlier version said that this 
was a motion by DOJ.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52569&title=Major%20Voting%20Rights%20Development%3A%20Intervenors%20Seeks%20to%20Have%20Texas%20Bailed%20In%20Under%20Section%203%20of%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20-corrected&description=>
Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme 
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting Rights Act 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off


    Breaking: Ninth Circuit Rejects Constitutional Challenges to
    California's Top Two Primary System
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52561>

Posted on July 3, 2013 9:38 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52561> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

You can read the unanimous opinion at this link 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Opinion-Affirming-Judgment.pdf>.  
UPDATE:Richard Winger responds <http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=34745>.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52561&title=Breaking%3A%20Ninth%20Circuit%20Rejects%20Constitutional%20Challenges%20to%20California%E2%80%99s%20Top%20Two%20Primary%20System&description=>
Posted in political parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, 
primaries <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32> | Comments Off


    "Voting Rights Institute Wraps a Week of Practical Voting Rights
    Litigation Instruction Led by Field Experts"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52558>

Posted on July 3, 2013 9:26 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52558> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

See here. 
<http://www.clcblog.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=527:voting-rights-institute-wraps-a-week-of-practical-voting-rights-litigation-instruction-led-by-field-experts>

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52558&title=%E2%80%9CVoting%20Rights%20Institute%20Wraps%20a%20Week%20of%20Practical%20Voting%20Rights%20Litigation%20Instruction%20Led%20by%20Field%20Experts%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | 
Comments Off


    "Voting Rights Act Ruling Forces Justice Department Reassignments"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52555>

Posted on July 3, 2013 8:46 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52555> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

HuffPo 
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/03/voting-rights-act-justice-department_n_3518576.html?utm_hp_ref=tw>: 
"In striking down 
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/voting-rights-act-supreme-court_n_3429810.html> 
a key provision of the Voting Rights Act last week, members of the 
Supreme Court didn't just neuter a major component of landmark civil 
rights law. The justices also eliminated the workload of several dozen 
federal employees."

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52555&title=%E2%80%9CVoting%20Rights%20Act%20Ruling%20Forces%20Justice%20Department%20Reassignments%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>, 
Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off


    "North Carolina Speeds Up to Run Election Red Light?"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52553>

Posted on July 3, 2013 8:25 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52553> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Michael McDonald 
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/north-carolina-speeds-up_b_3536128.html>: 
"So, Republicans would be wise to remember that they are still bound by 
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. If they interpret the Supreme 
Court's yellow light as an opportunity to speed up and implement new 
laws without foresight, they may themselves running a red light. The 
penalty may not be only an overturning of the offending law, but some 
proverbial jail time, too."

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52553&title=%E2%80%9CNorth%20Carolina%20Speeds%20Up%20to%20Run%20Election%20Red%20Light%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, 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
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/20130705/0ec18ca2/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/20130705/0ec18ca2/attachment.png>


View list directory