[EL] ELB News and Commentary 7/18/13

Thu Jul 18 08:46:24 PDT 2013

    "New Voting Rights Law Hinges on Some Less-Visible Republicans"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53144>

Posted on July 18, 2013 8:42 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53144> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

David Hawkins says 
<http://blogs.rollcall.com/hawkings/voting-rights-act-rewrite-hinges-on-little-known-republicans/> 
it may be up to Reps. Sensenbrenner and Westmoreland in the House.

Rep. Westmoreland and I were strange bedfellows 
<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/013542.html> during the 2006 
reauthorization, when the conservative Republican lawmaker offered the 
pro-active bailout amendment I was pushing to help save section 5.  The 
amendment went down to defeat, as Westmoreland knew it would, and he 
voted ultimately against the 2006 reauthorization.

The House hearing is happening now <http://t.co/jmZs7n6MNY>. Here's my 
post from yesterday <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53094> on why I'm now 
more pessimistic of a deal.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53144&title=%E2%80%9CNew%20Voting%20Rights%20Law%20Hinges%20on%20Some%20Less-Visible%20Republicans%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in political parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, 
political polarization <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>, Voting 
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off

    "Congress Gingerly Takes Up Voting Rights Legislation"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53141>

Posted on July 18, 2013 8:31 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53141> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NLJ reports 
<http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202611317914&thepage=1>.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53141&title=%E2%80%9CCongress%20Gingerly%20Takes%20Up%20Voting%20Rights%20Legislation%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting 
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off

    Melowese Richardson Gets Five Year Term for Illegal Voting
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53138>

Posted on July 18, 2013 8:28 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53138> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

See here 
<http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201307171724/NEWS0107/307170089&nclick_check=1>.  
This is a significant sentence for some serious misconduct, including 
voting her sister's vote, who has been in a coma since 2003.  Although 
the poll worker accepted a plea deal, she was unrepentant:

    "I think the board has shown me nothing but total disrespect for the
    30 years I've served them," she told the judge. "I believe in the
    system and I've done nothing to harm the system or cause disgrace to
    President Obama."

    The conservative, outspoken judge responded with scathing comments,
    blasting Richardson for suggesting she was being prosecuted because
    she was a black Democrat helping a black Democratic presidential
    candidate.

    "It has nothing to do with race. It has nothing to do with politics.
    It has nothing to do with disrespecting you. You did this to
    yourself," Ruehlman told her.

    "You're very selfish, self-centered. I really believe President
    Obama, if he were asked about this today, he would be appalled. He
    would not want anybody to cheat to get elected."

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53138&title=Melowese%20Richardson%20Gets%20Five%20Year%20Term%20for%20Illegal%20Voting&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

    "Bad omens for the House Voting Rights hearing"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53136>

Posted on July 18, 2013 8:23 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53136> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

/Salon/ 
<http://www.salon.com/2013/07/18/bad_omens_for_the_house_voting_rights_hearing/>reports 
<http://www.salon.com/2013/07/18/bad_omens_for_the_house_voting_rights_hearing/>.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53136&title=%E2%80%9CBad%20omens%20for%20the%20House%20Voting%20Rights%20hearing%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments Off

    "Senate Revisits Voting Rights Act Following Court Ruling"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53134>

Posted on July 17, 2013 9:32 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53134> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NPR reports. 
<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=203032220>

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53134&title=%E2%80%9CSenate%20Revisits%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20Following%20Court%20Ruling%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting 
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off

    "A Test of Seriousness for Those Who Say Section 2 is Sufficient"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53131>

Posted on July 17, 2013 9:26 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53131> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Sam Bagenstos 
<http://www.law.umich.edu/FacultyBio/Pages/FacultyBio.aspx?FacID=sambagen> 
sent the following message to the Election Law listserv, reposted here 
with permission:

    In his testimony at today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing,
    Michael Carvin argued that preclearance is unnecessary because
    Section 2, with its post-1982 "results test," provides sufficient
    protection against voting discrimination nationwide.  In their
    prepared testimony for tomorrow's House Judiciary Committee hearing,
    both Christian Adams and Hans von Spakovsky make versions of the
    same argument (though they give it less prominence than Carvin's
    prepared testimony did).

    I would like to offer a simple test for whether this is a serious,
    good-faith argument or just a political talking point.  Anyone who
    argues that Section 2?s results test, applied nationwide, is
    sufficient to address today's problems of voting discrimination
    should have to answer the following two or three questions:
    1.  In your view, is Section 2?s results test constitutional?
    2.  Do you predict that the Supreme Court, as currently constituted,
    will uphold Section 2?s results test as constitutional?
    3.  If the answer to question #2 is yes, why do you think the
    current Court, given the case law from /Boerne/ through /Shelby
    County/, will uphold a statute that, in Will Baude's words
    <http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/16/what-will-happen-to-section-two-of-the-voting-rights-act/>,
    "sweeps far more broadly" than does the Constitution itself, and
    that, as Rick Hasen points out
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53071>, "has no geographic or
    temporal limits"?
    Unless an advocate of the Section-2-results-test-is-sufficient line
    is willing to give a clear and unqualified affirmative answer to
    questions #1 and #2, and can give a persuasive explanation in
    response to question #3, there is no reason to accept her position
    as a serious and good-faith argument instead of a political talking
    point.
    Of course, even if the argument is serious and offered in good
    faith, it might be wrong.  I happen to think that even if Section
    2?s results test survives a constitutional challenge it is woefully
    insufficient as a replacement for preclearance.  That's a matter we
    can debate.  But to say that Section 2?s results test is sufficient
    without being willing to say that the results test is
    constitutional, predict that the Court will uphold it as
    constitutional, and persuasively explain the basis for that
    prediction is to make the promise to the ear but break it to the hope.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53131&title=%E2%80%9CA%20Test%20of%20Seriousness%20for%20Those%20Who%20Say%20Section%202%20is%20Sufficient%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting 
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off

    "Group Wants Justices to Lift Limits on Political Giving"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53129>

Posted on July 17, 2013 9:24 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53129> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Marcia Coyle reports 
<http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleSCI.jsp?id=1202611293322&kw=Group%20Wants%20Justices%20to%20Lift%20Limits%20on%20Political%20Giving&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&cn=20130717&src=EMC-Email&pt=Supreme%20Court%20Brief%20Headlines&slreturn=20130617172811>:

    For its first brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, the Cause of Action
    Institute picked a controversial cause: an end to certain limits on
    individual contributions to federal candidates, political action
    committees and political party committees. McCutcheon and Republican
    National Committee v. Federal Election Commission offers the Supreme
    Court an another opportunity to deregulate money in elections
    following its much criticized ruling in Citizens United v. Federal
    Election Commission in 2010. The justices will hear arguments in the
    case this fall.
    The Cause of Action Institute, which describes itself as a
    nonprofit, nonpartisan government-accountability organization "that
    fights to protect economic opportunity when federal regulations,
    spending and cronyism threaten it," has joined the legal fight with
    an amicus brief supporting challengers Shaun McCutcheon and the
    Republican National Committee (RNC).

    "This is their first Supreme Court brief, but it's right down their
    alley," said Barnaby Zall of Weinberg, Jacobs & Tolani in Rockville,
    Md., counsel of record on the amicus brief. "They are an
    organization focused on government accountability andthey work
    mainly with the [Freedom of Information Act]. They understand
    disclosure and rules. They looked at this issue as combining lots of
    issues that affected them."

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53129&title=%E2%80%9CGroup%20Wants%20Justices%20to%20Lift%20Limits%20on%20Political%20Giving%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | 
Comments Off

    "Let's Enact a New Voting Rights Act"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53126>

Posted on July 17, 2013 9:19 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53126> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Norm Ornstein has written this WaPo oped. 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-voting-rights-act-for-the-21st-century/2013/07/17/c1061786-e337-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html?hpid=z3>

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53126&title=%E2%80%9CLet%E2%80%99s%20Enact%20a%20New%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting 
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off

    "How to Save the Voting Rights Act; Here's the best option for
    Congress" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53123>

Posted on July 17, 2013 4:02 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53123> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Chris Elmendorf and Doug Spencer write 
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/07/voting_rights_act_how_congress_can_save_it.html> 
for /Slate./

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53123&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20to%20Save%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%3B%20Here%E2%80%99s%20the%20best%20option%20for%20Congress%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting 
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off

    "California: More revelations on San Diego mayor and what it would
    take to get a recall on the ballot"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53121>

Posted on July 17, 2013 4:01 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53121> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

This item appears at the Recall Elections Blog. 
<http://recallelections.blogspot.com/2013/07/california-more-revelations-on-san.html>

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53121&title=%E2%80%9CCalifornia%3A%20More%20revelations%20on%20San%20Diego%20mayor%20and%20what%20it%20would%20take%20to%20get%20a%20recall%20on%20the%20ballot%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in recall elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=11> | 
Comments Off

    FairVote's Written Senate Testimony for Today's VRA Hearing
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53118>

Posted on July 17, 2013 3:56 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53118> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

It is here. 
<http://www.fairvote.org/assets/FairVote-Written-Testimony-for-Senate-Judiciary-Committee-Hearing-on-Shelby.pdf>  
If anyone has a link to a collection of the various statements, please 
send it along.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53118&title=FairVote%E2%80%99s%20Written%20Senate%20Testimony%20for%20Today%E2%80%99s%20VRA%20Hearing&description=>
Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | 
Comments Off

    "Rep. John Lewis: 'The Voting Rights Act Is Needed Now Like Never
    Before" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53116>

Posted on July 17, 2013 3:54 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53116> by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Ari Berman 
<http://www.thenation.com/blog/175336/rep-john-lewis-voting-rights-act-needed-now-never#> 
on today's Senate hearing.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53116&title=%E2%80%9CRep.%20John%20Lewis%3A%20%E2%80%98The%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20Is%20Needed%20Now%20Like%20Never%20Before%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in 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
hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130718/6083a896/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/20130718/6083a896/attachment.png>