[EL] Law-election Digest, Vol 27, Issue 23
wjk
wjkellpro at aol.com
Tue Jul 23 17:45:23 PDT 2013
Richard:
How do you square your interpretation of the 9th Amd w/ Art 1, sec 4: giving the state legislatures the authority to pick 'the times, places, and manner of holding [federal] elections'? Top Two is a 'manner,' isn't it? Also, there is no protection for the two party system in our Const; indeed, as everyone knows, one reason for the separation of powers was to prevent party take over of government.*
Bill Kelleher
*See
The Original Intentions of the Framers for US PresidentialElections
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1317837
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com>
Subject: [EL] Justice Scalia, originalism, and the 9th amendment
To: "law-election at uci.edu" <law-election at uci.edu>
Message-ID:
<1374595224.37705.YahooMailNeo at web140403.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
There are many ways to rebut Justice Scalia's theory of how to interpret the
U.S. Constitution.? One of them, in my opinion, is the very existence of the 9th
amendment, which says, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."? The
existence of the 9th amendment seems to say that the founders expected the
Constitution to protect individual liberty against future dangers to liberty
that had not been imagined in 1791.
I believe that the Ninth Amendment ought to protect the right of voters to vote
for anyone they wish.? Before government-printed ballots came into existence in
the U.S. in 1888, it was impossible to restrict any voter from voting for anyone
he wished.? That is the sort of right that existed at the time of the founding
of the nation, and which seems essential, and which no longer exists, given
Burdick v Takushi.? As a result, we are now at a point in constitutional law in
which it is constitutional to require the voters of California's 31st U.S. House
district, a majority Democratic district, to be limited to a choice of only two
Republicans (as happened in November 2012).? Under federal law, the November
election is the congressional election itself; it is not a run-off.
?
Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
-----Original Message-----
From: law-election-request <law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu>
To: law-election <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Sent: Tue, Jul 23, 2013 12:00 pm
Subject: Law-election Digest, Vol 27, Issue 23
Send Law-election mailing list submissions to
law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu
You can reach the person managing the list at
law-election-owner at department-lists.uci.edu
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Law-election digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Justice Scalia, originalism, and the 9th amendment
(Richard Winger)
2. ELB News and Commentary 7/23/13 (Rick Hasen)
3. CFTC Enforcement enforcement controversy similar to FEC
(David Mason)
4. Re: new ID data (Justin Levitt)
5. about that SSRN top ten list (Rick Hasen)
6. Re: new ID data (Rick Hasen)
7. Re: Voter ID isn't a game-changer (paraphrasing) (Thomas J. Cares)
8. Re: new ID data (Jonathan Rodden Stanford)
9. Re: new ID data (Justin Levitt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com>
Subject: [EL] Justice Scalia, originalism, and the 9th amendment
To: "law-election at uci.edu" <law-election at uci.edu>
Message-ID:
<1374595224.37705.YahooMailNeo at web140403.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
There are many ways to rebut Justice Scalia's theory of how to interpret the
U.S. Constitution.? One of them, in my opinion, is the very existence of the 9th
amendment, which says, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."? The
existence of the 9th amendment seems to say that the founders expected the
Constitution to protect individual liberty against future dangers to liberty
that had not been imagined in 1791.
I believe that the Ninth Amendment ought to protect the right of voters to vote
for anyone they wish.? Before government-printed ballots came into existence in
the U.S. in 1888, it was impossible to restrict any voter from voting for anyone
he wished.? That is the sort of right that existed at the time of the founding
of the nation, and which seems essential, and which no longer exists, given
Burdick v Takushi.? As a result, we are now at a point in constitutional law in
which it is constitutional to require the voters of California's 31st U.S. House
district, a majority Democratic district, to be limited to a choice of only two
Republicans (as happened in November 2012).? Under federal law, the November
election is the congressional election itself; it is not a run-off.
?
Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130723/d0be15cb/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:24:00 -0700
From: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 7/23/13
To: "law-election at UCI.edu" <law-election at UCI.edu>
Message-ID: <51EEAE20.7010309 at law.uci.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
"Finally, Real Numbers on Voter ID"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53331>
Posted on July 23, 2013 9:21 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53331> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Nate Cohn
<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113986/voter-id-north-carolina-law-hurts-democrats>:
These data leave no question about whether voter ID laws have a
disparate impact on non-white voters. In that sense, Democratic
fears and Republican hopes are confirmed. But the North Carolina
data also suggests that voter ID laws are unlikely to flip the
outcome of a national election, even if it does have an
objectionable, disparate impact on non-white and Democratic-leaning
voters. That doesn't mean it couldn't play a role in a close
election---and close elections do happen. But Republicans expecting
to flip Pennsylvania or Democrats fearing that Republicans will
steal elections with voter ID should be circumspect about the
comparatively modest electoral consequences. Many of the registered
voters without a photo ID just aren't voting and 40 percent of them
are probably voting Republican. If you want voter ID because you
think you'll steal Pennsylvania, or you're opposed because you're
concerned it's a Democratic apocalypse, move on. It's not the
apocalypse, even if it is an affront to voting rights.
That's pretty much the conclusion I drew last year in /The Voting Wars
<http://www.amazon.com/The-Voting-Wars-Election-Meltdown/dp/0300198248/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1329286945&sr=1-2-catcorr>/.
What's missing from this analysis is the role that the voter id debate
plays on both sides in driving up turnout and spurring fundraising.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53331&title=%E2%80%9CFinally%2C%20Real%20Numbers%20on%20Voter%20ID%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,
The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
"North Carolina Republicans Push Extreme Voter Suppression Measures"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53328>
Posted on July 23, 2013 9:17 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53328> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ari Berman's latest:
<http://www.thenation.com/blog/175395/north-carolina-republicans-push-extreme-voter-suppression-measures#>
Here are the details
<https://m.facebook.com/joshhstein/posts/10200895286880231?refsrc=http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2F820nAsXgre&refid=9&_rdr#_=_>,
via North Carolina State Senator Josh Stein (D-Wake County):
If anyone had any doubt about the bill's intent to suppress voters,
all he/she has to do is read it. The bill now does the following:
*shortens early voting by 1 week,
*eliminates same day registration and provisional voting if at wrong
precinct,
*prevents counties from offering voting on last Saturday before the
election beyond 1 pm,
*prevents counties from extending poll hours by one hour on election
day in extraordinary circumstances (like lengthy lines),
*eliminates state supported voter registration drives and
preregistration for 16/17 year olds,
*repeals voter owned judicial elections and straight party voting,
*increases number of people who can challenge voters inside the
precinct, and
*purges voter rolls more often.
Meanwhile, it floods the democratic process with more money. The
bill makes it easier for outside groups to spend on electioneering
and reduces disclosure of the sources. It also raises the
contribution limits to $5k per person per election from $4k and
indexes to amount to rise with inflation.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53328&title=%E2%80%9CNorth%20Carolina%20Republicans%20Push%20Extreme%20Voter%20Suppression%20Measures%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments Off
"RECENT HITS (for all papers announced in the last 60 days) TOP 10
Papers for Journal of LSN: Election Law & Voting Rights (Topic)"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53325>
Posted on July 23, 2013 9:06 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53325> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I'll try to post the SSRN Recent Hits in this area every two months:
*RECENT HITS (for all papers announced in the last 60 days) *
*TOP 10 Papers for Journal of LSN: Election Law & Voting Rights (Topic)*
<http://papers.ssrn.com/publicRss/rssManagerInc.cfm?journalId=991929>
/May 24, 2013 to July 23, 2013/
Rank Downloads Paper Title
1 167 *The Seventeenth Amendment and Federalism in an Age of National
Political Parties*
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2269077>
David Schleicher
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=469670>,
George Mason University -- School of Law, Faculty,
/Date posted to database: /May 25, 2013
/Last Revised: /May 25, 2013
2 163 *Three Wrong Progressive Approaches (and One Right One) to
Campaign Finance Reform*
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2293979>
Richard L. Hasen
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=337>,
University of California, Irvine -- School of Law,
/Date posted to database: /July 15, 2013
/Last Revised: /July 19, 2013
3 150 *Shelby County and the Illusion of Minimalism*
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2291612>
Richard L. Hasen
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=337>,
University of California, Irvine -- School of Law,
/Date posted to database: /July 9, 2013
/Last Revised: /July 9, 2013
4 76 *A Reply to Professors Cain and Charles*
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2288725>
Lawrence Lessig
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=17068>,
Harvard University -- Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard Law School,
/Date posted to database: /July 4, 2013
/Last Revised: /July 4, 2013
5 70 *Fixing 501(c)(4): Recalibrating the Tax Subsidy for Lobbying and
Political Activity*
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2274827>
David S. Miller
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=243768>,
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft,
/Date posted to database: /June 7, 2013
/Last Revised: /June 7, 2013
6 61 *Alexander's Genius*
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2268206>
Mitchell N. Berman
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=136813>,
University of Texas School of Law,
/Date posted to database: /May 23, 2013
/Last Revised: /June 12, 2013
7 47 *Corruption Temptation*
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2272189>
Guy-Uriel E. Charles
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=282370>,
Duke Law School,
/Date posted to database: /May 31, 2013
/Last Revised: /May 31, 2013
8 47 *Photo ID, Provisional Balloting, and Indiana's 2012 Primary
Election* <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2277858>
Michael J. Pitts
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=405097>,
Indiana University -- Robert H. McKinney School of Law,
/Date posted to database: /June 13, 2013
/Last Revised: /July 8, 2013
9 37 *A Cure Worse than the Disease?*
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2272180>
Ellen D. Katz
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=265855>,
University of Michigan Law School,
/Date posted to database: /May 31, 2013
/Last Revised: /June 6, 2013
10 35 *The Election Law Connection and U.S. Federalism*
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2110776>
Kirsten Nussbaumer
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1642677>,
Stanford University,
/Date posted to database: /July 17, 2012
/Last Revised: /June 11, 2013
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53325&title=%E2%80%9CRECENT%20HITS%20%28for%20all%20papers%20announced%20in%20the%20last%2060%20days%29%20TOP%2010%20Papers%20for%20Journal%20of%20LSN%3A%20Election%20Law%20%26%20Voting%20Rights%20%28Topic%29%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in pedagogy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=23> | Comments Off
Archived Webcast of UCI Law Supreme Court Term in Review Now
Available <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53321>
Posted on July 23, 2013 9:00 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53321> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Watch here: <http://youtu.be/xCYz5jFtijI> [corrected link]
* Mario Barnes
<http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/barnes/index.html>, UCI Law
* Joan Biskupic <http://blogs.reuters.com/joan-biskupic/>, Reuters
* Erwin Chemerinsky
<http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/chemerinsky/index.html>,
UCI Law
* Miguel Estrada <http://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyers/mestrada>, Gibson
Dunn (DC office)
* Adam Liptak <http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/bio-liptak.html>, New
York Times
* Doug NeJaime
<http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/nejaime/index.html>, UCI Law
* Moderated by Rick Hasen
<http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/index.html>, UCI Law
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53321&title=Archived%20Webcast%20of%20UCI%20Law%20Supreme%20Court%20Term%20in%20Review%20Now%20Available&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off
"Watchdogs' Filing Reminds FEC that it Has No Authority to Declare
Federal Laws Unconstitutional" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53318>
Posted on July 23, 2013 8:56 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53318> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
See here
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2197:july-23-2013-watchdogs-filing-reminds-fec-that-it-has-no-authority-to-declare-federal-laws-unconstitutional&catid=63:legal-center-press-releases&Itemid=61>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53318&title=%E2%80%9CWatchdogs%E2%80%99%20Filing%20Reminds%20FEC%20that%20it%20Has%20No%20Authority%20to%20Declare%20Federal%20Laws%20Unconstitutional%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
Comments Off
"Michele Bachmann says Barack Obama can use executive order to give
voting rights to illegal immigrants legalized under Senate bill"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53316>
Posted on July 23, 2013 8:55 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53316> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
PANTS ON FIRE!
<http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/23/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-says-barack-obama-can-use-executi/>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53316&title=%E2%80%9CMichele%20Bachmann%20says%20Barack%20Obama%20can%20use%20executive%20order%20to%20give%20voting%20rights%20to%20illegal%20immigrants%20legalized%20under%20Senate%20bill%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments Off
"The Aftermath of Shelby County v. Holder: Will Voting Rights Be
Diminished?" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53314>
Posted on July 23, 2013 8:53 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53314> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Norman Siegel and Janos Marton blog.
<http://www.citylandnyc.org/the-aftermath-of-shelby-county-v-holder-will-voting-rights-be-diminished/>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53314&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Aftermath%20of%20Shelby%20County%20v.%20Holder%3A%20Will%20Voting%20Rights%20Be%20Diminished%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> |
Comments Off
"OPEN Act Would End Secret Corporate Political Spending"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53312>
Posted on July 23, 2013 8:52 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53312> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
/Corporate Counsel/
<http://www.law.com/corporatecounsel/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202610945950&kw=OPEN%20Act%20Would%20End%20Secret%20Corporate%20Political%20Spending&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&cn=20130723&src=EMC-Email&pt=Daily%20Headlines>reports.
<http://www.law.com/corporatecounsel/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202610945950&kw=OPEN%20Act%20Would%20End%20Secret%20Corporate%20Political%20Spending&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&cn=20130723&src=EMC-Email&pt=Daily%20Headlines>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53312&title=%E2%80%9COPEN%20Act%20Would%20End%20Secret%20Corporate%20Political%20Spending%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
Comments Off
"House Committees Want IRS Chief Counsel's Documents"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53310>
Posted on July 23, 2013 8:51 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53310> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
/Corporate Counsel /reports
<http://www.law.com/corporatecounsel/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202611268741&kw=House%20Committees%20Want%20IRS%20Chief%20Counsel%27s%20Documents&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&cn=20130723&src=EMC-Email&pt=Daily%20Headlines&slreturn=20130623115148>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53310&title=%E2%80%9CHouse%20Committees%20Want%20IRS%20Chief%20Counsel%E2%80%99s%20Documents%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
"IRS Scrutinized Some Liberal Groups"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53305>
Posted on July 22, 2013 7:40 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53305> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politico reports.
<http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/irs-scrutinized-liberal-groups-94556.html?hp=l3>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53305&title=%E2%80%9CIRS%20Scrutinized%20Some%20Liberal%20Groups%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
"Julius Henson 'Robo Call' Verdict Affirmed by Md. Appeals court"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53303>
Posted on July 22, 2013 7:38 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53303> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP <http://afro.com/sections/news/baltimore/story.htm?storyid=78650>:
"Maryland's second-highest court has affirmed the verdict
<http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/cosa/2013/1046s12.pdf> in the election
fraud trial of a campaign consultant involving Election Day automated
calls that prosecutors said were aimed at keeping Black voters from the
polls."
Via Robbin Stewart, who offers some thoughts
<http://ballots.blogspot.com/2013/07/where-im-working-this-week-i-have-to-go.html>
about the case.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53303&title=%E2%80%9CJulius%20Henson%20%E2%80%98Robo%20Call%E2%80%99%20Verdict%20Affirmed%20by%20Md.%20Appeals%20court%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12> | Comments Off
"FEC To Vote To Treat Married Same-Sex Couples Equally"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53299>
Posted on July 22, 2013 7:33 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53299> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
TPM reports
<http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/07/fec-vote-treat-married-same-sex-couples-equally.php?ref=fpa>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53299&title=%E2%80%9CFEC%20To%20Vote%20To%20Treat%20Married%20Same-Sex%20Couples%20Equally%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, federal
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24> | Comments Off
Hey, If You Love or Hate Rick Pildes's Post on Election Fraud and
the Civil War... <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53296>
Posted on July 22, 2013 4:00 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53296> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
then address your comments to him about this.
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53236>
I've been getting lots of email.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53296&title=Hey%2C%20If%20You%20Love%20or%20Hate%20Rick%20Pildes%E2%80%99s%20Post%20on%20Election%20Fraud%20and%20the%20Civil%20War%E2%80%A6&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments Off
"Super PACs, other independent political groups already setting pace
for 2016 presidential race" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53293>
Posted on July 22, 2013 3:32 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53293> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo reports.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/super-pacs-other-independent-political-groups-already-setting-pace-for-2016-presidential-race/2013/07/22/784cac46-efba-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_story.html>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53293&title=%E2%80%9CSuper%20PACs%2C%20other%20independent%20political%20groups%20already%20setting%20pace%20for%202016%20presidential%20race%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
Comments Off
Jack Balkin's Teaching Notes for Shelby County
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53290>
Posted on July 22, 2013 3:29 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53290> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
They are here.
<http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/07/teaching-materials-for-shelby-county-v.html>
We cover much the same ground in the 2013 Election Law casebook
supplement <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53174>.
And I take much of the same viewpoint as Jack in my APSA paper, Shelby
County and the Illusion of Minimalism
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2291612>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53290&title=Jack%20Balkin%E2%80%99s%20Teaching%20Notes%20for%20Shelby%20County&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
Justice Scalia, Statutory Interpretation and Godwin's Law
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53287>
Posted on July 22, 2013 12:34 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53287>
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Via the NYT Taking Note blog
<http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/scalias-latest-outburst/?hp>.
Dynamic statutory interpretation apparently leads to Naziism.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53287&title=Justice%20Scalia%2C%20Statutory%20Interpretation%20and%20Godwin%E2%80%99s%20Law&description=>
Posted in statutory interpretation <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=21>
| 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/20130723/8dd0be9a/attachment-0001.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/20130723/8dd0be9a/attachment-0002.png
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: rss_small.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4442 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130723/8dd0be9a/attachment-0003.png
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 13:07:14 -0400
From: David Mason <dmason12 at gmail.com>
Subject: [EL] CFTC Enforcement enforcement controversy similar to FEC
To: "law-election at uci.edu" <law-election at uci.edu>
Message-ID:
<CAH9RBXvMe2EGhHqQ6B+UDUg+8NX+BkV1P6n97KKoAL=hj-vg8w at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I thought those on the list interested in the dispute over staff
enforcement discretion at the FEC would be interested a very similar
dispute at the CFTC
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-23/cftc-enforcers-bypassed-commission-votes-on-probes-o-malia-says.html
The fact that similar disputes occur in different enforcement agencies
suggests to me that the Commissioners' concerns are about appropriate roles
and oversight rather than about particular case outcomes.
Dave Mason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130723/dd316dda/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 10:06:58 -0700
From: Justin Levitt <levittj at lls.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] new ID data
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Message-ID: <51EEB832.8060700 at lls.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
What's also missing in this analysis is concern about anything other
than the final outcome of a Presidential race.
Yes, the piece
<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113986/voter-id-north-carolina-law-hurts-democrats>
finds that "the electoral consequences of voter ID seem relatively
marginal," by noting that with ID, Obama's final share of the North
Carolina vote might have dropped from 48.3 to 48%.
But the piece also notes that this latest data reveals that there are
somewhere around 319,000 registered voters currently without a
state-issued photo ID, "just" (just!) 138,425 of whom participated in
the 2012 general election. There is no estimate of the number of
currently unregistered but eligible voters who don't now have a
state-issued photo ID, but it's got to add to the pile.
For those who think the most important measure of the impact of an
electoral policy is the outcome of a Presidential race, why have a
national election at all? Polling science is pretty good: we could just
declare the winner of every state where the margin of victory is larger
than the margin of error in several consecutive polls in the last week
of October, and only bother with actually letting people vote in the
very few states where polls don't deliver a clear answer. Holding an
election seems like a really expensive way to confirm the
pretty-much-guaranteed winner. Or, put differently, if you're just
focused on Presidential outcome, "the electoral consequences of holding
an election seem relatively marginal."
Justin
--
Justin Levitt
Associate Professor of Law
Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
919 Albany St.
Los Angeles, CA 90015
213-736-7417
justin.levitt at lls.edu
ssrn.com/author=698321
On 7/23/2013 9:24 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>
>
> "Finally, Real Numbers on Voter ID"
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53331>
>
> Posted on July 23, 2013 9:21 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53331>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Nate Cohn
> <http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113986/voter-id-north-carolina-law-hurts-democrats>:
>
> These data leave no question about whether voter ID laws have a
> disparate impact on non-white voters. In that sense, Democratic
> fears and Republican hopes are confirmed. But the North Carolina
> data also suggests that voter ID laws are unlikely to flip the
> outcome of a national election, even if it does have an
> objectionable, disparate impact on non-white and
> Democratic-leaning voters. That doesn't mean it couldn't play a
> role in a close election---and close elections do happen. But
> Republicans expecting to flip Pennsylvania or Democrats fearing
> that Republicans will steal elections with voter ID should be
> circumspect about the comparatively modest electoral consequences.
> Many of the registered voters without a photo ID just aren't
> voting and 40 percent of them are probably voting Republican. If
> you want voter ID because you think you'll steal Pennsylvania, or
> you're opposed because you're concerned it's a Democratic
> apocalypse, move on. It's not the apocalypse, even if it is an
> affront to voting rights.
>
> That's pretty much the conclusion I drew last year in /The Voting Wars
> <http://www.amazon.com/The-Voting-Wars-Election-Meltdown/dp/0300198248/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1329286945&sr=1-2-catcorr>/.
> What's missing from this analysis is the role that the voter id debate
> plays on both sides in driving up turnout and spurring fundraising.
>
> Posted in election administration
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130723/e0b8edf9/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 10:08:59 -0700
From: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] about that SSRN top ten list
To: "law-election at UCI.edu" <law-election at UCI.edu>
Message-ID: <51EEB8AB.1070604 at law.uci.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
I blogged SSRN's list this morning (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53325)
of the top ten recent papers listed in SSRN's "Election Law and Voting
Rights" series. Note that this is a list that the person uploading to
SSRN has to choose---SSRN does not go through and decide if a paper
belongs in that category. So there are certainly election law papers
out there now which would make this top 10 list if the paper got listed
in the right series but are not listed here. You can go in and add a
paper to the series so that it will be included in the future.
--
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
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 10:10:55 -0700
From: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] new ID data
To: Justin Levitt <levittj at lls.edu>
Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Message-ID: <51EEB91F.9030801 at law.uci.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I'd add that a .3 swing is a pretty significant risk of swinging a swing
state even if one were concerned only about presidential elections.
On 7/23/13 10:06 AM, Justin Levitt wrote:
> What's also missing in this analysis is concern about anything other
> than the final outcome of a Presidential race.
>
> Yes, the piece
> <http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113986/voter-id-north-carolina-law-hurts-democrats>
> finds that "the electoral consequences of voter ID seem relatively
> marginal," by noting that with ID, Obama's final share of the North
> Carolina vote might have dropped from 48.3 to 48%.
>
> But the piece also notes that this latest data reveals that there are
> somewhere around 319,000 registered voters currently without a
> state-issued photo ID, "just" (just!) 138,425 of whom participated in
> the 2012 general election. There is no estimate of the number of
> currently unregistered but eligible voters who don't now have a
> state-issued photo ID, but it's got to add to the pile.
>
> For those who think the most important measure of the impact of an
> electoral policy is the outcome of a Presidential race, why have a
> national election at all? Polling science is pretty good: we could
> just declare the winner of every state where the margin of victory is
> larger than the margin of error in several consecutive polls in the
> last week of October, and only bother with actually letting people
> vote in the very few states where polls don't deliver a clear answer.
> Holding an election seems like a really expensive way to confirm the
> pretty-much-guaranteed winner. Or, put differently, if you're just
> focused on Presidential outcome, "the electoral consequences of
> holding an election seem relatively marginal."
>
> Justin
> --
> Justin Levitt
> Associate Professor of Law
> Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
> 919 Albany St.
> Los Angeles, CA 90015
> 213-736-7417
> justin.levitt at lls.edu
> ssrn.com/author=698321
> On 7/23/2013 9:24 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Finally, Real Numbers on Voter ID"
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53331>
>>
>> Posted on July 23, 2013 9:21 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53331>
>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Nate Cohn
>> <http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113986/voter-id-north-carolina-law-hurts-democrats>:
>>
>> These data leave no question about whether voter ID laws have a
>> disparate impact on non-white voters. In that sense, Democratic
>> fears and Republican hopes are confirmed. But the North Carolina
>> data also suggests that voter ID laws are unlikely to flip the
>> outcome of a national election, even if it does have an
>> objectionable, disparate impact on non-white and
>> Democratic-leaning voters. That doesn't mean it couldn't play a
>> role in a close election---and close elections do happen. But
>> Republicans expecting to flip Pennsylvania or Democrats fearing
>> that Republicans will steal elections with voter ID should be
>> circumspect about the comparatively modest electoral
>> consequences. Many of the registered voters without a photo ID
>> just aren't voting and 40 percent of them are probably voting
>> Republican. If you want voter ID because you think you'll steal
>> Pennsylvania, or you're opposed because you're concerned it's a
>> Democratic apocalypse, move on. It's not the apocalypse, even if
>> it is an affront to voting rights.
>>
>> That's pretty much the conclusion I drew last year in /The Voting
>> Wars
>> <http://www.amazon.com/The-Voting-Wars-Election-Meltdown/dp/0300198248/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1329286945&sr=1-2-catcorr>/.
>> What's missing from this analysis is the role that the voter id
>> debate plays on both sides in driving up turnout and spurring
>> fundraising.
>>
>> Posted in election administration
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
--
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/20130723/9e239947/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 10:14:06 -0700
From: "Thomas J. Cares" <Tom at TomCares.com>
Subject: Re: [EL] Voter ID isn't a game-changer (paraphrasing)
To: Election Law <law-election at uci.edu>
Message-ID:
<CADE9kw9K8VmaSaiW9h+y1tkJPzqSHTFvrqW-Q7RN=n=aVkhqsA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
I'd like to chime in quickly (though I could write tens of thousands of
words evaluating how the nuances - big and small - of our democratic
republic disparage effective representation for America's
underclass/struggling).
Voter ID may circumstantially disparage non-whites and/or Democrats, but
that's not the primary descriptor for those upon whom its target falls -
our underclass: those who don't bank, travel, drive, etc.
It may never be a game changer in determining the nationally dominant party
[FN 1], but that doesn't mean it's not significant in further disparaging
effective representation for the underclass.
While there are surely thousands, I'll include one example of how this
manifests.
If I remember some old research correctly, a plurality of misdemeanor
convictions in California are for driving on a suspended license and
(unless I remember incorrectly, in which case I apologize for the error)
most of those misdemeanor-conviction-yielding suspensions are for failure
to pay traffic fines.
...We give people misdemeanors for simultaneously being indigent and doing
something which most adult livelihoods depend on.
That's without a voter ID law - possibly just an effect of the partisan
primaries (before top two was implemented), which were almost-always the
only deciding election in legislative contests and had very low turnouts of
which indigents were negligible..
I do suspect that some legislators simply prefer to be more in the service
of the affluent and comfortable than the poor and struggling; particularly,
I think some concern is owed to the intra-party effects of voter ID.
I recall there was once puzzlement on this listserv about Rhode Island's
democratic legislature adopting voter ID.
It's not a puzzle. There are democratic legislators who'd prefer to further
imbalance the influence and representation of affluent and comfortable
democrats over those not-so-economically-comfortable.
In summary, I wouldn't dismiss it being an "apocalypse" for the hope of
getting policy-makers and the organism of government to care about those
who don't have cars or bank accounts.
-Thomas Cares
FN 1. However, when you compound many distorting factors such as
gerrymandering, disparate per-capita influence resulting from the US Senate
and Electoral College, and then add on new things like Voter ID (and the
bill described in the second post below, etc), I wouldn't write off that
'aggregated distortions' can surely determine the nationally dominant party.
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
> ?Finally, Real Numbers on Voter ID?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53331>
> Posted on July 23, 2013 9:21 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53331> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Nate Cohn<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113986/voter-id-north-carolina-law-hurts-democrats>
> :
>
> These data leave no question about whether voter ID laws have a disparate
> impact on non-white voters. In that sense, Democratic fears and Republican
> hopes are confirmed. But the North Carolina data also suggests that voter
> ID laws are unlikely to flip the outcome of a national election, even if it
> does have an objectionable, disparate impact on non-white and
> Democratic-leaning voters. That doesn?t mean it couldn?t play a role in a
> close election?and close elections do happen. But Republicans expecting to
> flip Pennsylvania or Democrats fearing that Republicans will steal
> elections with voter ID should be circumspect about the comparatively
> modest electoral consequences. Many of the registered voters without a
> photo ID just aren?t voting and 40 percent of them are probably voting
> Republican. If you want voter ID because you think you?ll steal
> Pennsylvania, or you?re opposed because you?re concerned it?s a Democratic
> apocalypse, move on. It?s not the apocalypse, even if it is an affront to
> voting rights.
>
> That?s pretty much the conclusion I drew last year in *The Voting
Wars<http://www.amazon.com/The-Voting-Wars-Election-Meltdown/dp/0300198248/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1329286945&sr=1-2-catcorr>
> *. What?s missing from this analysis is the role that the voter id
> debate plays on both sides in driving up turnout and spurring fundraising.
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53331&title=%E2%80%9CFinally%2C%20Real%20Numbers%20on%20Voter%20ID%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
> ?North Carolina Republicans Push Extreme Voter Suppression
Measures?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53328>
> Posted on July 23, 2013 9:17 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53328> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Ari Berman?s latest:<http://www.thenation.com/blog/175395/north-carolina-republicans-push-extreme-voter-suppression-measures#>
>
> Here are the details<https://m.facebook.com/joshhstein/posts/10200895286880231?refsrc=http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2F820nAsXgre&refid=9&_rdr#_=_>,
> via North Carolina State Senator Josh Stein (D-Wake County):
>
> If anyone had any doubt about the bill?s intent to suppress voters, all
> he/she has to do is read it. The bill now does the following:
>
> *shortens early voting by 1 week,
> *eliminates same day registration and provisional voting if at wrong
> precinct,
> *prevents counties from offering voting on last Saturday before the
> election beyond 1 pm,
> *prevents counties from extending poll hours by one hour on election day
> in extraordinary circumstances (like lengthy lines),
> *eliminates state supported voter registration drives and
> preregistration for 16/17 year olds,
> *repeals voter owned judicial elections and straight party voting,
> *increases number of people who can challenge voters inside the precinct,
> and
> *purges voter rolls more often.
>
> Meanwhile, it floods the democratic process with more money. The bill
> makes it easier for outside groups to spend on electioneering and reduces
> disclosure of the sources. It also raises the contribution limits to $5k
> per person per election from $4k and indexes to amount to rise with
> inflation.
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53328&title=%E2%80%9CNorth%20Carolina%20Republicans%20Push%20Extreme%20Voter%20Suppression%20Measures%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments
> Off
> ?RECENT HITS (for all papers announced in the last 60 days) TOP 10
> Papers for Journal of LSN: Election Law & Voting Rights (Topic)?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53325>
> Posted on July 23, 2013 9:06 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53325> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I?ll try to post the SSRN Recent Hits in this area every two months:
>
>
>
> * RECENT HITS (for all papers announced in the last 60 days) *
> *TOP 10 Papers for Journal of LSN: Election Law & Voting Rights (Topic)*
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/publicRss/rssManagerInc.cfm?journalId=991929>
> *May 24, 2013 to July 23, 2013*
> Rank Downloads Paper Title 1 167 *The Seventeenth Amendment and
> Federalism in an Age of National Political Parties*
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2269077>
> David Schleicher<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=469670>
> ,
> George Mason University ? School of Law, Faculty,
> *Date posted to database: *May 25, 2013
> *Last Revised: *May 25, 2013 2 163 *Three Wrong Progressive
> Approaches (and One Right One) to Campaign Finance Reform*
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2293979>
> Richard L. Hasen<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=337>
> ,
> University of California, Irvine ? School of Law,
> *Date posted to database: *July 15, 2013
> *Last Revised: *July 19, 2013 3 150 *Shelby County and the Illusion
> of Minimalism*
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2291612>
> Richard L. Hasen<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=337>
> ,
> University of California, Irvine ? School of Law,
> *Date posted to database: *July 9, 2013
> *Last Revised: *July 9, 2013 4 76 *A Reply to Professors Cain and
> Charles* <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2288725>
> Lawrence Lessig<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=17068>
> ,
> Harvard University ? Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard Law School,
> *Date posted to database: *July 4, 2013
> *Last Revised: *July 4, 2013 5 70 *Fixing 501(c)(4): Recalibrating
> the Tax Subsidy for Lobbying and Political Activity*
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2274827>
> David S. Miller<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=243768>
> ,
> Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft,
> *Date posted to database: *June 7, 2013
> *Last Revised: *June 7, 2013 6 61 *Alexander?s Genius*
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2268206>
> Mitchell N. Berman<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=136813>
> ,
> University of Texas School of Law,
> *Date posted to database: *May 23, 2013
> *Last Revised: *June 12, 2013 7 47 *Corruption Temptation*
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2272189>
> Guy-Uriel E. Charles<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=282370>
> ,
> Duke Law School,
> *Date posted to database: *May 31, 2013
> *Last Revised: *May 31, 2013 8 47 *Photo ID, Provisional Balloting,
> and Indiana?s 2012 Primary Election*
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2277858>
> Michael J. Pitts<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=405097>
> ,
> Indiana University ? Robert H. McKinney School of Law,
> *Date posted to database: *June 13, 2013
> *Last Revised: *July 8, 2013 9 37 *A Cure Worse than the Disease?*
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2272180>
> Ellen D. Katz<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=265855>
> ,
> University of Michigan Law School,
> *Date posted to database: *May 31, 2013
> *Last Revised: *June 6, 2013 10 35 *The Election Law Connection and
> U.S. Federalism*
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2110776>
> Kirsten Nussbaumer<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1642677>
> ,
> Stanford University,
> *Date posted to database: *July 17, 2012
> *Last Revised: *June 11, 2013
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53325&title=%E2%80%9CRECENT%20HITS%20%28for%20all%20papers%20announced%20in%20the%20last%2060%20days%29%20TOP%2010%20Papers%20for%20Journal%20of%20LSN%3A%20Election%20Law%20%26%20Voting%20Rights%20%28Topic%29%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in pedagogy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=23> | Comments Off
> Archived Webcast of UCI Law Supreme Court Term in Review Now
Available<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53321>
> Posted on July 23, 2013 9:00 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53321> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Watch here: <http://youtu.be/xCYz5jFtijI> [corrected link]
>
> - Mario Barnes<http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/barnes/index.html>,
> UCI Law
> - Joan Biskupic <http://blogs.reuters.com/joan-biskupic/>, Reuters
> - Erwin Chemerinsky<http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/chemerinsky/index.html>,
> UCI Law
> - Miguel Estrada <http://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyers/mestrada>, Gibson
> Dunn (DC office)
> - Adam Liptak <http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/bio-liptak.html>, New
> York Times
> - Doug NeJaime<http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/nejaime/index.html>,
> UCI Law
> - Moderated by Rick Hasen<http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/index.html>,
> UCI Law
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53321&title=Archived%20Webcast%20of%20UCI%20Law%20Supreme%20Court%20Term%20in%20Review%20Now%20Available&description=>
> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments
> Off
> ?Watchdogs? Filing Reminds FEC that it Has No Authority to Declare
> Federal Laws Unconstitutional? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53318>
> Posted on July 23, 2013 8:56 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53318> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> See here<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2197:july-23-2013-watchdogs-filing-reminds-fec-that-it-has-no-authority-to-declare-federal-laws-unconstitutional&catid=63:legal-center-press-releases&Itemid=61>
> .
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53318&title=%E2%80%9CWatchdogs%E2%80%99%20Filing%20Reminds%20FEC%20that%20it%20Has%20No%20Authority%20to%20Declare%20Federal%20Laws%20Unconstitutional%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
> ?Michele Bachmann says Barack Obama can use executive order to give
> voting rights to illegal immigrants legalized under Senate
bill?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53316>
> Posted on July 23, 2013 8:55 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53316> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> PANTS ON FIRE!<http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/23/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-says-barack-obama-can-use-executi/>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53316&title=%E2%80%9CMichele%20Bachmann%20says%20Barack%20Obama%20can%20use%20executive%20order%20to%20give%20voting%20rights%20to%20illegal%20immigrants%20legalized%20under%20Senate%20bill%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments
> Off
> ?The Aftermath of Shelby County v. Holder: Will Voting Rights Be
> Diminished?? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53314>
> Posted on July 23, 2013 8:53 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53314> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Norman Siegel and Janos Marton blog.<http://www.citylandnyc.org/the-aftermath-of-shelby-county-v-holder-will-voting-rights-be-diminished/>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53314&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Aftermath%20of%20Shelby%20County%20v.%20Holder%3A%20Will%20Voting%20Rights%20Be%20Diminished%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments
> Off
> ?OPEN Act Would End Secret Corporate Political Spending?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53312>
> Posted on July 23, 2013 8:52 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53312> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> *Corporate Counsel*<http://www.law.com/corporatecounsel/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202610945950&kw=OPEN%20Act%20Would%20End%20Secret%20Corporate%20Political%20Spending&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&cn=20130723&src=EMC-Email&pt=Daily%20Headlines>reports.<http://www.law.com/corporatecounsel/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202610945950&kw=OPEN%20Act%20Would%20End%20Secret%20Corporate%20Political%20Spending&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&cn=20130723&src=EMC-Email&pt=Daily%20Headlines>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53312&title=%E2%80%9COPEN%20Act%20Would%20End%20Secret%20Corporate%20Political%20Spending%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
> ?House Committees Want IRS Chief Counsel?s Documents?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53310>
> Posted on July 23, 2013 8:51 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53310> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> *Corporate Counsel *reports<http://www.law.com/corporatecounsel/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202611268741&kw=House%20Committees%20Want%20IRS%20Chief%20Counsel%27s%20Documents&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&cn=20130723&src=EMC-Email&pt=Daily%20Headlines&slreturn=20130623115148>
> .
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53310&title=%E2%80%9CHouse%20Committees%20Want%20IRS%20Chief%20Counsel%E2%80%99s%20Documents%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
> ?IRS Scrutinized Some Liberal Groups?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53305>
> Posted on July 22, 2013 7:40 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53305> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Politico reports.<http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/irs-scrutinized-liberal-groups-94556.html?hp=l3>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53305&title=%E2%80%9CIRS%20Scrutinized%20Some%20Liberal%20Groups%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
> ?Julius Henson ?Robo Call? Verdict Affirmed by Md. Appeals
court?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53303>
> Posted on July 22, 2013 7:38 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53303> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> AP <http://afro.com/sections/news/baltimore/story.htm?storyid=78650>:
> ?Maryland?s second-highest court has affirmed the verdict<http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/cosa/2013/1046s12.pdf>in
the election fraud trial of a campaign consultant involving Election Day
> automated calls that prosecutors said were aimed at keeping Black voters
> from the polls.?
>
> Via Robbin Stewart, who offers some thoughts<http://ballots.blogspot.com/2013/07/where-im-working-this-week-i-have-to-go.html>about
the case.
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53303&title=%E2%80%9CJulius%20Henson%20%E2%80%98Robo%20Call%E2%80%99%20Verdict%20Affirmed%20by%20Md.%20Appeals%20court%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12> | Comments Off
> ?FEC To Vote To Treat Married Same-Sex Couples Equally?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53299>
> Posted on July 22, 2013 7:33 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53299> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> TPM reports<http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/07/fec-vote-treat-married-same-sex-couples-equally.php?ref=fpa>
> .
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53299&title=%E2%80%9CFEC%20To%20Vote%20To%20Treat%20Married%20Same-Sex%20Couples%20Equally%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, federal
> election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24> | Comments Off
> Hey, If You Love or Hate Rick Pildes?s Post on Election Fraud and the
> Civil War? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53296>
> Posted on July 22, 2013 4:00 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53296> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> then address your comments to him about this.
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53236>
>
> I?ve been getting lots of email.
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53296&title=Hey%2C%20If%20You%20Love%20or%20Hate%20Rick%20Pildes%E2%80%99s%20Post%20on%20Election%20Fraud%20and%20the%20Civil%20War%E2%80%A6&description=>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments
> Off
> ?Super PACs, other independent political groups already setting pace
> for 2016 presidential race? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53293>
> Posted on July 22, 2013 3:32 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53293> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> WaPo reports.<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/super-pacs-other-independent-political-groups-already-setting-pace-for-2016-presidential-race/2013/07/22/784cac46-efba-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_story.html>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53293&title=%E2%80%9CSuper%20PACs%2C%20other%20independent%20political%20groups%20already%20setting%20pace%20for%202016%20presidential%20race%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
> Jack Balkin?s Teaching Notes for Shelby County<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53290>
> Posted on July 22, 2013 3:29 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53290> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> They are here.
> <http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/07/teaching-materials-for-shelby-county-v.html>
>
> We cover much the same ground in the 2013 Election Law casebook
supplement<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53174>
> .
>
> And I take much of the same viewpoint as Jack in my APSA paper, Shelby
> County and the Illusion of Minimalism<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2291612>
> .
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53290&title=Jack%20Balkin%E2%80%99s%20Teaching%20Notes%20for%20Shelby%20County&description=>
> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting
> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
> Justice Scalia, Statutory Interpretation and Godwin?s Law<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53287>
> Posted on July 22, 2013 12:34 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53287> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Via the NYT Taking Note blog<http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/scalias-latest-outburst/?hp>
> .
>
> Dynamic statutory interpretation apparently leads to Naziism.
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53287&title=Justice%20Scalia%2C%20Statutory%20Interpretation%20and%20Godwin%E2%80%99s%20Law&description=>
> Posted in statutory interpretation <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=21>
> | 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 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.edu
> hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/http://electionlawblog.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130723/6dca717b/attachment-0001.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 4442 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130723/6dca717b/attachment-0002.png
-------------- 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/20130723/6dca717b/attachment-0003.png
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 10:33:03 -0700
From: Jonathan Rodden Stanford <jrodden at stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] new ID data
To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>, Justin Levitt <levittj at lls.edu>
Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Message-ID: <CE140C5F.15341%jrodden at stanford.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I haven?t seen it posted on this list yet, so here is a link to what is by
far the most thorough empirical analysis of the impact of voter id laws:
http://kyledropp.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/0/9/12094568/dropp_voter_id.pdf
Best,
Jonathan
On 7/23/13 10:10 AM, "Rick Hasen" <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
> I'd add that a .3 swing is a pretty significant risk of swinging a swing
> state even if one were concerned only about presidential elections.
>
> On 7/23/13 10:06 AM, Justin Levitt wrote:
>
>
>>
>> What's also missing in this analysis is concern about anything other than the
>> final outcome of a Presidential race.
>>
>> Yes, the piece
>> <http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113986/voter-id-north-carolina-law-hurts-
>> democrats> finds that "the electoral consequences of voter ID seem
>> relatively marginal," by noting that with ID, Obama's final share of the
>> North Carolina vote might have dropped from 48.3 to 48%.
>>
>> But the piece also notes that this latest data reveals that there are
>> somewhere around 319,000 registered voters currently without a state-issued
>> photo ID, "just" (just!) 138,425 of whom participated in the 2012 general
>> election. There is no estimate of the number of currently unregistered but
>> eligible voters who don't now have a state-issued photo ID, but it's got to
>> add to the pile.
>>
>> For those who think the most important measure of the impact of an electoral
>> policy is the outcome of a Presidential race, why have a national election at
>> all? Polling science is pretty good: we could just declare the winner of
>> every state where the margin of victory is larger than the margin of error in
>> several consecutive polls in the last week of October, and only bother with
>> actually letting people vote in the very few states where polls don't deliver
>> a clear answer. Holding an election seems like a really expensive way to
>> confirm the pretty-much-guaranteed winner. Or, put differently, if you're
>> just focused on Presidential outcome, "the electoral consequences of holding
>> an election seem relatively marginal."
>>
>> Justin
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130723/51206865/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 11:37:34 -0700
From: Justin Levitt <levittj at lls.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] new ID data
To: Jonathan Rodden Stanford <jrodden at stanford.edu>
Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Message-ID: <51EECD6E.9060001 at lls.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
With respect, the study that Jonathan linked to may well be the most
thorough empirical analysis of the impact of voter ID laws _on turnout_
thus far (and I look forward to reading it more thoroughly, and seeing
whether it solves some of the problems with modeling turnout effects of
single election laws that Erickson and Minnite
<http://www.columbia.edu/%7Erse14/erikson-minnite.pdf> have identified).
But as I've written <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2017228>, laws increasing
barriers to entry have an impact beyond the marginal person who voted
last time. A law permanently prohibiting any person who didn't vote in
2008 from voting in the future would have shown only a modest effect on
aggregate turnout, at least in the short run -- the vast majority of
2012 voters were also 2008 voters. But I would not say that such a law
has only a minimal impact.
If you're only looking at turnout, that's better than just looking at
the outcome of a Presidential race ... but it's still only part of the
impact.
Justin
On 7/23/2013 10:33 AM, Jonathan Rodden Stanford wrote:
> Re: [EL] new ID data I haven't seen it posted on this list yet, so
> here is a link to what is by far the most thorough empirical analysis
> of the impact of voter id laws:
>
> http://kyledropp.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/0/9/12094568/dropp_voter_id.pdf
>
> Best,
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> On 7/23/13 10:10 AM, "Rick Hasen" <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>
> I'd add that a .3 swing is a pretty significant risk of swinging
> a swing state even if one were concerned only about presidential
> elections.
>
> On 7/23/13 10:06 AM, Justin Levitt wrote:
>
>
>
> What's also missing in this analysis is concern about anything
> other than the final outcome of a Presidential race.
>
> Yes, the piece
> <http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113986/voter-id-north-carolina-law-hurts-democrats>
> finds that "the electoral consequences of voter ID seem
> relatively marginal," by noting that with ID, Obama's final
> share of the North Carolina vote might have dropped from 48.3
> to 48%.
>
> But the piece also notes that this latest data reveals that
> there are somewhere around 319,000 registered voters currently
> without a state-issued photo ID, "just" (just!) 138,425 of
> whom participated in the 2012 general election. There is no
> estimate of the number of currently unregistered but eligible
> voters who don't now have a state-issued photo ID, but it's
> got to add to the pile.
>
> For those who think the most important measure of the impact
> of an electoral policy is the outcome of a Presidential race,
> why have a national election at all? Polling science is
> pretty good: we could just declare the winner of every state
> where the margin of victory is larger than the margin of error
> in several consecutive polls in the last week of October, and
> only bother with actually letting people vote in the very few
> states where polls don't deliver a clear answer. Holding an
> election seems like a really expensive way to confirm the
> pretty-much-guaranteed winner. Or, put differently, if you're
> just focused on Presidential outcome, "the electoral
> consequences of holding an election seem relatively marginal."
>
> Justin
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130723/f827e3ec/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
End of Law-election Digest, Vol 27, Issue 23
********************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130723/7bc32fd2/attachment.html>
View list directory