[EL] ELB News and Commentary 7/17/13
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Wed Jul 17 09:15:33 PDT 2013
Correction: The NY Times story below is about Pennsylvania, not Texas.
On 7/17/13 9:06 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>
>
> Justin Levitt, Mike Carvin, Luz Urbáez Weinberg Added to Today's
> Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Shelby County
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53077>
>
> Posted on July 17, 2013 9:05 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53077>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Watch the webcast live
> <http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=6ae289b2466e2489f90d6b42c9d8d78f>beginning
> at 1 pm eastern.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53077&title=Justin%20Levitt%2C%20Mike%20Carvin%2C%20Luz%20Urb%C3%A1ez%20Weinberg%20Added%20to%20Today%E2%80%99s%20Senate%20Judiciary%20Committee%20Hearing%20on%20Shelby%20County&description=>
> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting
> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
>
>
> "Texas Defends Law on ID for Voters"
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53074>
>
> Posted on July 17, 2013 9:02 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53074>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NYT reports
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/us/pennsylvania-defends-law-on-id-for-voters.html?ref=politics&_r=0>.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53074&title=%E2%80%9CTexas%20Defends%20Law%20on%20ID%20for%20Voters%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> |
> Comments Off
>
>
> Is Voting Rights Act Section 2 in Constitutional Danger from the
> Supreme Court? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53071>
>
> Posted on July 17, 2013 9:00 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53071>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Will Baude raises
> <http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/16/what-will-happen-to-section-two-of-the-voting-rights-act/>
> the question in light of /Shelby County. /I address this issue briefly
> in my APSA paper, Shelby County and the Illusion of Minimalism
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2291612>. My
> bottom line is yes, Section 2 is in danger of being struck down as an
> unconstitutional exercise of congressional power under /Shelby
> County/. It was in danger before, and /Shelby County/ moderately
> increases that danger. Unlike section 5, section 2 has no geographic
> or temporal limits, and further the majority might see it as not
> congruent and proportional to actual constitutional violations by
> states in crafting their district lines and other voting rules. I
> plan to write more on this in the future.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53071&title=Is%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20Section%202%20in%20Constitutional%20Danger%20from%20the%20Supreme%20Court%3F&description=>
> Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> |
> Comments Off
>
>
> "IRS Chief Counsel Office Sought Information on 2010 Election
> Activity of Tea Party Applicants, House Leaders Say"
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53068>
>
> Posted on July 17, 2013 8:55 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53068>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Bloomberg BNA breaking news report onthis letter
> <http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/wm_ogr_letter_to_irs.pdf>.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53068&title=%E2%80%9CIRS%20Chief%20Counsel%20Office%20Sought%20Information%20on%202010%20Election%20Activity%20of%20Tea%20Party%20Applicants%2C%20House%20Leaders%20Say%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
>
>
> "Judicial panel strikes down Indianapolis City-County Council
> redistricting plan" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53065>
>
> Posted on July 17, 2013 8:51 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53065>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> IndyStar
> <http://www.indystar.com/article/20130717/NEWS/307170036/Judicial-panel-strikes-down-Indianapolis-City-County-Council-redistricting-plan>:
>
> A Marion Superior Court judicial panel has struck down a
> redistricting ordinance drawn up by City-County Council
> Republicans in late 2011 and signed into law by Indianapolis Mayor
> Greg Ballard just as Democrats took majority control of the
> council.The panel of five judges, voting along partisan lines,
> ruled 3-2 that the redistricting plan signed by Ballard, a
> Republican, was not properly drawn up under Indiana law because it
> was done before 2012. Indiana law, in a statute applying
> specifically to Marion County, says the council must redraw the 25
> districts' boundaries during the second year after the census,
> which last was conducted in 2010.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53065&title=%E2%80%9CJudicial%20panel%20strikes%20down%20Indianapolis%20City-County%20Council%20redistricting%20plan%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> | Comments
> Off
>
>
> "Lake County elections officials look into how woman voted twice
> in Munster" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53063>
>
> Posted on July 17, 2013 8:46 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53063>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> News
> <http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/munster/lake-county-elections-officials-look-into-how-woman-voted-twice/article_da4e36f2-417d-53e9-b317-89c609d0152a.html>
> from Indiana.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53063&title=%E2%80%9CLake%20County%20elections%20officials%20look%20into%20how%20woman%20voted%20twice%20in%20Munster%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
> | Comments Off
>
>
> Maryland Solution for DC Voting Rights?
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53058>
>
> Posted on July 17, 2013 8:41 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53058>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> A reader, Vince Treacy, writes in:
>
> I do have a comment on Michael Wein's proposal at
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53006
>
> The posting seems to be based on the bill reintroduced by Rep.
> Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), "District of Columbia Voting Rights
> Restoration Act of 2013?, H.R. 299, 113th Congress, promoted by
> its supporters as retrocession-lite.
>
> There are three constitutional methods for providing voting rights
> for the capitol city: constitutional amendment, statehood, or
> retrocession with the consent of Maryland. I favor statehood. The
> proposal for semi-recession is not one of the constitutional
> means. It has no basis in any of the enumerated power of Congress
> in the Constitution. It would violate numerous express provisions
> of the Constitution.
>
> The author supported this scheme in a posting at the Washington
> Post in January 2011 entitled "A better road to the vote:
> Retrocession, with a twist." Read it here:
>
> http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-opinions/2011/01/a_better_road_to_voting_rights.html
>
> He wrote: :The needed legislation involves only the constitutional
> provisions found in Article IV, Section 3, which state:
>
> Clause 1: 'New States may be admitted by the Congress into this
> Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the
> Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the
> Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the
> Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of
> the Congress.'
>
> Clause 2: 'The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make
> all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or
> other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this
> Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of
> the United States, or of any particular State.'"
>
> Neither provision, however, has any bearing on the proposal.
> Clause 1 permits the admission of new states, subject to
> limitations. Since the proposal would not make the District of
> Columbia a state, or a part of an existing state, it does not
> authorize the proposal for semi-retrocession.
>
> Clause 2 grants Congress authority over territories. Since the
> District is not a territory, it has no relevance at to the
> District The District was created by Article 1, section 8, which
> is the sole source of Congress's authority over the District.
>
> These are legal errors. If the proposal relied only on these
> provisions, then it would have no constitutional basis. But there
> is no other apparent authority in the Constitution.
>
> The bill itself makes no mention of the Territories Clause in
> Article IV. It instead relies on the District Clause , on the
> power over "Places purchased," and the authority over federal
> elections in Article I, section 4.
>
> The District Clause grants Congress the power "To exercise
> exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District
> (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular
> States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the
> Government of the United States,..." Art. I, cl.8, sec. 17 (first
> part). While the clause grants Congress plenary municipal power
> over the Seat of the Government, it provides no authority to
> interfere in the elections provisions of a sovereign state, or of
> any other matter beyond District boundaries . The one exception,
> the extension of diversity jurisdiction to the District, was
> sustained by a divided Supreme Court in a decision without a
> majority holding.
>
> Kenneth R. Thomas, CRS Report "The Constitutionality of Awarding
> the Delegate for the District of Columbia a Vote in the House of
> Representatives or the Committee of the Whole," January 24,
> 2007.http://www.dcwatch.com/issues/voting070124.htm
>
> Another possible source may be the power to "exercise like
> Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the
> Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the
> Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other
> needful Buildings." Art. I, cl.8, sec. 17 (first part). The bill
> itself, in its Findings in section 2(2),
>
> The bill recites Congress's exclusive legislation over the
> District and then finds in (section 2(3) that Congress "shall
> exercise like authority" over places purchased from the states for
> needful buildings. Since 1801, the District has never been a
> purchased place of "enclave" within Maryland or any other state.
> It is a "District" created by "Cession" for the "Seat of the
> Government of the United States" under an entirely different
> provision of clause 17.
>
> The bill also cites the power of Congress to make or alter
> regulations governing the "Time, Places and Manner" established by
> legislatures "in each State." Art. 1, sec. 4, cl. 1. While
> Congress is granted authority to supersede certain state election
> requirements, this clause gives it no authority to require a state
> to register residents of another jurisdiction who are not, and
> have never been, its citizens.
>
> At one time, Congress ordered states to register 18-year old
> persons for federal elections, but that provision was superseded
> by the 26th Amendment, and those persons were state citizens.
> Similarly, states have been required to register former citizens
> who are overseas, but, once again, they are citizens; this law has
> not yet been sustained by the Supreme Court.
>
> Even if there were any enumerated or implied power to support the
> bill (and I do not believe there is one), it would violate the
> literal terms of many express limitations on the power of Congress.
>
> 1. The House "shall be composed of Members chosen ... by
> the People of the several States." Art. I, sec. 2, cl. 1. The
> District is not a state, and has not been part of a state since it
> was created in 1801. Its residents therefore cannot be counted as
> people of the several states, although they are United States
> citizens.
>
> 2. House electors in each state must have "the
> Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous branch
> of the State Legislature." Art. I, sec. 2, cl. 1. The residents of
> the District do not, and cannot have, the qualifications for
> electors of the Maryland House of Delegates.
>
> 3. The Senate "shall be composed of two Senators from each
> State, elected by the people thereof." 17th Amd., cl. 1. With
> respect to Maryland, the residents of the District are not, and
> cannot be, "the people thereof." Senators cannot be elected from
> any area that, like the District, is not a "State."
>
> 4. A Representative or Senator must be, when elected, "an
> Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen." Even if
> District residents were allowed to vote, no DC inhabitant could
> ever serve as Senator or Representative. Art. I, sec. 2, cl. 2;
> 17th Amd., cl. 1. The bill (sec. 3(b)) purport to "restore" the
> right of residents of DC to "be considered inhabitants" of
> Maryland, but, of course, an express constitutional requirement
> cannot be eliminated by a mere statute.
>
> 5. "Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the
> Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors" equal to the
> number of its Senators and Representatives. Art. II, sec. 1, cl.
> 2. In violation of this reservation of authority to the states,
> the bill would order Maryland officials to register DC residents
> to vote for presidential electors.
>
> 6. The Constitution requires both congressional and state
> approval for any "Agreement or Compact with another State." Art.
> I, sec. 10, cl. 4.This Clause applies to compacts between a State
> and the District (See. for example, compacts establishing
> Metropolitan Washington Area Transit Authority and Metropolitan
> Washington Airports Authority). The bill implicitly requires
> agreement between Maryland and the District over voting
> eligibility and procedures, but has no provision for votes of
> approval by either the legislatures or the people of either
> Maryland or the District.
>
> 7. The bill describes the District as an "enclave,"
> although it is not a federal enclave (a term not found in the
> Constitution), but a "District" created by the Constitution as
> "the Seat of the Government" of the U.S.
>
> The proposed bill has been introduced in every Congress for the
> past ten years. As yet, there does not appear to be a
> Congressional Research Service Report on its constitutional
> issues, although any Member of Congress may request one.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53058&title=Maryland%20Solution%20for%20DC%20Voting%20Rights%3F&description=>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments
> Off
>
>
> 6th Circuit Reverses Kentucky Vote Buying Convictions for New
> Trial Because of Evidentiary Issues
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53055>
>
> Posted on July 17, 2013 8:12 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53055>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> See this opinion
> <http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/13a0179p-06.pdf>.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53055&title=6th%20Circuit%20Reverses%20Kentucky%20Vote%20Buying%20Convictions%20for%20New%20Trial%20Because%20of%20Evidentiary%20Issues&description=>
> Posted in vote buying <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=43> | Comments Off
>
>
> Jerry Goldfeder on Petitioning in NY
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53051>
>
> Posted on July 17, 2013 7:49 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53051>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Watch
> <http://www.cityandstateny.com/look-jerry-goldfeder/#.UeRm72hQqJA.email>.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53051&title=Jerry%20Goldfeder%20on%20Petitioning%20in%20NY&description=>
> Posted in petition signature gathering
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=39> | Comments Off
>
>
> "Miguel Estrada, Controversial Bush Court Nominee, Judges U.S.
> Supreme Court at UCI" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53046>
>
> Posted on July 17, 2013 7:46 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53046>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The OC Weekly offers this item
> <http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2013/07/miguel_estrada_uc_irvine_law_supreme_court.php>
> on the UCI Supreme Court Term in Review event
> <http://www.law.uci.edu/events/supreme_court_term_review_2013.html>
> I'll be moderating Friday. (For the record, I don't think anyone has
> called "Slick" Rick Hasen before---though they will now!)
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53046&title=%E2%80%9CMiguel%20Estrada%2C%20Controversial%20Bush%20Court%20Nominee%2C%20Judges%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20at%20UCI%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> |
> Comments Off
>
>
> "Cautionary Tale: Student Gets Jail Time for Stealing Online
> School Election" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53044>
>
> Posted on July 17, 2013 7:43 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53044>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> A ChapinBlog
> <http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/electionacademy/2013/07/cautionary_tale_student_gets_j.php>.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53044&title=%E2%80%9CCautionary%20Tale%3A%20Student%20Gets%20Jail%20Time%20for%20Stealing%20Online%20School%20Election%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in internet voting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=49>, voting
> technology <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40> | Comments Off
>
>
> "IRS Employees Showed No Politics, Lawmakers' Memo Shows"
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53041>
>
> Posted on July 16, 2013 4:43 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53041>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Bloomberg
> <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-16/irs-employees-showed-no-politics-lawmakers-memo-shows.html>:
> "Interviews with 15 U.S. Internal Revenue Service employees show no
> political motivation or White House involvement in targeting groups
> applying for tax-exempt status, House Democrats said in a memo
> <http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/MemoOnNoPoliticalTargetingAtIRS.pdf>."
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53041&title=%E2%80%9CIRS%20Employees%20Showed%20No%20Politics%2C%20Lawmakers%E2%80%99%20Memo%20Shows%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
>
>
> "Statistics dominate day 2 of Pa. voter ID trial"
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53038>
>
> Posted on July 16, 2013 4:39 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53038>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> AP reports
> <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PA_VOTER_ID_PAOL-?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>.
>
> That analysis showed that, as of this spring, about 511,000
> registered voters either lacked one of the PennDOT-issued IDs or
> have IDs that have expired or will expire before the Nov. 5 election.
>
> Siskin's testimony bolsters the plaintiffs' central claim in the
> state Commonwealth court trial that the law, one of the strictest
> in the nation, cannot be implemented without disenfranchising a
> large segment of Pennsylvania's 8.2 million voters.
>
> But the state's statistics expert, William Wecker, has criticized
> Siskin's research in confidential court papers, excerpts from
> which the plaintiffs' attorney displayed on a large video screen.
> Wecker said Siskin's analysis exaggerates the problem by ignoring
> the fact many voters have other acceptable IDs that are available
> outside of PennDOT, such as IDs from many universities or the
> armed forces. He also has said the research includes voters who
> don't require IDs because they vote by absentee ballots.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53038&title=%E2%80%9CStatistics%20dominate%20day%202%20of%20Pa.%20voter%20ID%20trial%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
>
>
> HuffPost Live Archived Webcast of Debate on "Dysfunctional FEC"
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53035>
>
> Posted on July 16, 2013 4:19 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53035>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Watch <http://t.co/RcxKd0oebc>.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53035&title=HuffPost%20Live%20Archived%20Webcast%20of%20Debate%20on%20%E2%80%9CDysfunctional%20FEC%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
> federal election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24> |
> Comments Off
>
>
> "College kid steals classmates' login info, uses it to rig student
> body president election -- gets year in jail time for his trouble"
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53031>
>
> Posted on July 16, 2013 3:59 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53031>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> AP reports.
> <http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/student_steals_classmates_login_Wmw9AMyNI1kkjgtcnJ3yJI>
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53031&title=%E2%80%9CCollege%20kid%20steals%20classmates%E2%80%99%20login%20info%2C%20uses%20it%20to%20rig%20student%20body%20president%20election%20%E2%80%93%20gets%20year%20in%20jail%20time%20for%20his%20trouble%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, voting
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>, voting technology
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40> | Comments Off
>
>
> "Voting rights enforcers shift focus after Supreme Court defeat"
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53028>
>
> Posted on July 16, 2013 3:55 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53028>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Reuters reports
> <http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/16/us-usa-justice-voting-idUSBRE96F1AV20130716?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews>.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53028&title=%E2%80%9CVoting%20rights%20enforcers%20shift%20focus%20after%20Supreme%20Court%20defeat%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>,
> Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting Rights Act
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
>
>
> AG Holder's NAACP Speech Says DOJ VRA Enforcement to Shift to
> Section 2, Other Provisions <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53025>
>
> Posted on July 16, 2013 2:19 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53025>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Full text of speech
> <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/07/16/text-of-holder-speech-on-trayvon-martin-case/>.
>
> He also discusses a congressional response to /Shelby County./
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53025&title=AG%20Holder%E2%80%99s%20NAACP%20Speech%20Says%20DOJ%20VRA%20Enforcement%20to%20Shift%20to%20Section%202%2C%20Other%20Provisions&description=>
> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting
> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
>
>
> "Congress Recalls Watchdog to Explain IRS Audit"
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53022>
>
> Posted on July 16, 2013 2:08 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53022>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> AP
> <http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/07/16/us/politics/ap-us-irs-investigation.html?ref=politics>:
>
> The investigator who wrote a scathing report about the Internal
> Revenue Service targeting conservative political groups is heading
> back to Capitol Hill as a key House Democrat says his committee's
> investigation has found no evidence of political bias at the agency.
>
> IRS inspector general J. Russell George is to testify Thursday
> before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, along
> with two IRS workers who have been interviewed as part of the
> committee's investigation.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53022&title=%E2%80%9CCongress%20Recalls%20Watchdog%20to%20Explain%20IRS%20Audit%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
>
>
> FOX News of Pa Voter ID Case <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53019>
>
> Posted on July 16, 2013 1:23 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53019>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Interesting video report
> <http://video.foxnews.com/v/2547069721001/pennsylvanias-voter-id-law-gets-its-moment-in-court/?playlist_id=163737>.
> In the intro, Shepard Smith says: "Supporters say it could help
> prevent voter fraud, though frankly there's no evidence of widespread
> voter fraud."
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53019&title=FOX%20News%20of%20Pa%20Voter%20ID%20Case&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
>
>
> "The Senate that Senators Want" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53016>
>
> Posted on July 16, 2013 1:09 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53016>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Monkey Cage
> <http://themonkeycage.org/2013/07/16/the-senate-that-senators-want/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+themonkeycagefeed+%28The+Monkey+Cage%29>
> guest post from Eric Schickler
> <http://polisci.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/person_detail.php?person=27>
> and Greg Wawro: <http://www.columbia.edu/%7Egjw10/>
>
> Events in the Senate over the past few weeks offer two clear
> lessons. First, a simple majority in the Senate has the power --
> and indeed has long had the power -- to change how the institution
> operates. The strategy proposed by Harry Reid -- which
> essentially duplicated the strategy proposed by Republican leader
> Bill Frist (R-TN) in 2005, which in turn echoed a strategy
> promoted by liberals in the 1950s-70s and by Republican leader
> Nelson Aldrich as far back as January 1891 -- has been available
> to a determined Senate majority at least since the nineteenth
> century -- as we discuss in our book
> <http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8202.html> on the filibuster.
> The fact that the Republican minority relented in the nominations
> fight indicates that the threat of "reform by resolution" is real
> and that the Senate is not locked into its rules by virtue of its
> past institutional history. Second, the filibuster persists
> because a majority of senators has consistently preferred a system
> in which the minority can block action to one in which a simple
> majority decides every issue. Senators do not want their Chamber
> to become the House.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53016&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Senate%20that%20Senators%20Want%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
>
>
> "The Senate didn't go nuclear. But, actually, it kind of did."
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53013>
>
> Posted on July 16, 2013 11:53 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53013>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Ezra Klein:
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/16/the-senate-didnt-go-nuclear-but-actually-it-kind-of-did/>
> "This will be the new normal. It will be the new normal under
> Democrats and then it will be the new normal under Republicans. The
> Senate stopped short of actually ending the filibuster against
> executive-branch nominations today. But the effect might well be the
> same."
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53013&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Senate%20didn%E2%80%99t%20go%20nuclear.%20But%2C%20actually%2C%20it%20kind%20of%20did.%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
>
>
> "Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Could Disenfranchise More Than 500,000
> People: Trial Expert" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53010>
>
> Posted on July 16, 2013 10:57 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53010>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> HuffPo
> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/16/pennsylvania-voter-id-law_n_3605658.html?utm_hp_ref=tw>:
>
> A statistician testified on the second day of Pennsylvania's
> latest trial
> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/15/pennsylvania-voter-id-tri_0_n_3600979.html>
> over the constitutionality of the state's voter identification law
> that hundreds of thousands of voters could be disenfranchised if
> the law is allowed to stand.
>
> Bernard Siskin, a statistical expert who served as a consultant
> for a variety of government agencies and companies, including the
> FBI, testified that about 511,000 registered voters in
> Pennsylvania lack the state-issued IDs required at the polls under
> the new law, which was passed last spring but has yet to be enforced.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53010&title=%E2%80%9CPennsylvania%20Voter%20ID%20Law%20Could%20Disenfranchise%20More%20Than%20500%2C000%20People%3A%20Trial%20Expert%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in voter id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9> | Comments Off
>
>
> "The Maryland solution to D.C. voting; A neighboring state may
> hold the key to representation in Congress"
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53006>
>
> Posted on July 16, 2013 10:07 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53006>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Michael Wein oped
> <http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-dc-voting-20130711%2c0%2c4497900.story>in
> the /Baltimore Sun./
>
> Interested to know what others think of this analysis.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53006&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Maryland%20solution%20to%20D.C.%20voting%3B%20A%20neighboring%20state%20may%20hold%20the%20key%20to%20representation%20in%20Congress%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, voting
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31> | Comments Off
>
>
> Right Church, Wrong Pew Order <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53001>
>
> Posted on July 16, 2013 9:41 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53001>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Read it here
> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/SEIU-v-Husted.pdf>.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53001&title=Right%20Church%2C%20Wrong%20Pew%20Order&description=>
> Posted in election administration
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, provisional ballots
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=67>, The Voting Wars
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
>
>
> "UC Irvine School of Law to Host U.S. Supreme Court Term in Review
> Program on July 19? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52998>
>
> Posted on July 16, 2013 9:24 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52998>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> See this press release
> <http://www.marketwatch.com/story/uc-irvine-school-of-law-to-host-us-supreme-court-term-in-review-program-on-july-19-2013-07-16>.
> The event will be live webcast at 12 pm Pacific on Friday.
>
> UPDATE: The event is SOLD OUT but will be live webcast. I will post
> the webcast link Friday morning.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52998&title=%E2%80%9CUC%20Irvine%20School%20of%20Law%20to%20Host%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20Term%20in%20Review%20Program%20on%20July%2019%E2%80%B3&description=>
> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> |
> 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
--
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/20130717/4052fc05/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/20130717/4052fc05/attachment.png>
View list directory