[EL] ELB News and Commentary 7/24/13
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Wed Jul 24 08:46:10 PDT 2013
"Sign of the Times? Texas County to Install Panic Button in Election
Office" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53374>
Posted on July 24, 2013 8:37 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53374> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
A ChapinBlog <http://t.co/xTL8J6I9HF>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53374&title=%E2%80%9CSign%20of%20the%20Times%3F%20Texas%20County%20to%20Install%20Panic%20Button%20in%20Election%20Office%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments Off
"CBC seeks improvements to voting law"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53371>
Posted on July 24, 2013 8:34 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53371> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Hill:
<http://thehill.com/homenews/house/312719-dems-seek-improvements-to-voting-law>
Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) are seeking to
strengthen the Voting Rights Act by making it easier for judges to
expand voter protections across the country in response to
individual discrimination lawsuits.
The effort goes beyond crafting a broad definition of which voters
should get extra protection based on regional records of racial
discrimination.
The move is an indication that some Democrats are hoping to use last
month's Supreme Court decision scrapping the law's Section 4
coverage formula as an opportunity to bolster other provisions of
the landmark civil rights legislation that were left intact by the
ruling.
Specifically, the lawmakers are taking a close look at revising
Section 3, which empowers the court to apply Section 5's federal
"preclearance" requirements to jurisdictions found to discriminate
intentionally against minority voters.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53371&title=%E2%80%9CCBC%20seeks%20improvements%20to%20voting%20law%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> |
Comments Off
"Jim Sensenbrenner, GOP Voting Rights Act Champion, Fears Black
Panthers Case Will Stop Reform" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53368>
Posted on July 24, 2013 8:30 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53368> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ryan Reilly gets the big quotes
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/23/jim-sensenbrenner-voting-rights-act_n_3636311.html?utm_hp_ref=tw>
from Rep. Sensenbrenner on the prospects for fixing the VRA:
"It's going to be much more difficult," Sensenbrenner said. "Both
figuring out how to make Section 4 compliant with the court's
decision in the Shelby County case, as well as figuring out what
type of a formula would be able to pass both houses, is going to
require an awful lot of political input and negotiations.
"This is a puzzle that is not going to be easy to solve," he said.
"You know, if you sit next to someone who is doing sudoku on the
plane, you know you've got the easy ones and the hard ones. This is
going to be the hard one squared."...
"The Justice Department's activity and lack of activity,
particularly with the intimidation that I think was going on in
north Philadelphia with the New Black Panther Party, is going to
make it much more difficult to revive the Voting Rights Act,"
Sensenbrenner said. "The Justice Department is going to have to be
in on this and they're going to have to be sensitive that they're
going to have to address some of these concerns if there is to be a
revival of the Voting Rights Act."
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53368&title=%E2%80%9CJim%20Sensenbrenner%2C%20GOP%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20Champion%2C%20Fears%20Black%20Panthers%20Case%20Will%20Stop%20Reform%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> |
Comments Off
"The Super PACs in the Campaign Finance Reform Debate"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53364>
Posted on July 24, 2013 8:23 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53364> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bauer:
<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2013/07/super-pacs-reform-debate/>
What to do about super PACs? Joel Gora, no admirer of campaign
finance restrictions, argues that we should defend them
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2295052>. Joel
Gora, /Free Speech, Fair Elections, and Campaign Finance Laws: Can
They Co-Exist?/ Brooklyn Law School, Legal Studies Paper No. 346
(2013). If they have come to typify the problems with money in
politics, Gora contends, it is because we fail to appreciate their
contribution to free speech, or their origins in long-standing
independent expenditure jurisprudence. He adds: they didn't have the
impact on the outcome that their critics widely feared. In other
words, super PACs are good things, not bad things.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53364&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Super%20PACs%20in%20the%20Campaign%20Finance%20Reform%20Debate%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
Comments Off
"Justices to tackle campaign finance, affirmative action"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53361>
Posted on July 24, 2013 8:17 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53361> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Richard Wolf reports
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/23/supreme-court-campaign-finance-affirmative-action-october/2579985/>
for /USA Today./
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53361&title=%E2%80%9CJustices%20to%20tackle%20campaign%20finance%2C%20affirmative%20action%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off
"Blame the IRS or Fix It? Rules of the Game"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53358>
Posted on July 24, 2013 8:14 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53358> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Eliza's latest.
<http://www.rollcall.com/news/blame_the_irs_or_fix_it_rules_of_the_game-226581-1.html?pos=hbtxt>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53358&title=%E2%80%9CBlame%20the%20IRS%20or%20Fix%20It%3F%20Rules%20of%20the%20Game%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
"Elections changes advance in Senate"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53355>
Posted on July 23, 2013 4:32 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53355> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WRAL <http://www.wral.com/elections-changes-advance-in-senate/12693772/>:
After close to two hours of debate and discussion, during which
lawmakers were roundly criticized by members of the public, a Senate
committee passed a raft of elections reforms Tuesday.
House Bill 589
<http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/document/12692056/> sat
idle for three months since the House approved it before undergoing
an extreme makeover in recent days to add changes to voter
registration, early voting and campaign financing to the initial
proposal requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls.
MORE:
The legislation proposes to shorten the two-and-a-half week early
voting period in general elections by a week, to prohibit counties
from extending early voting hours on the Saturday before Election
Day to accommodate crowds and to eliminate same-day voter
registration during early voting....
Other provisions in the revamped bill include the following:
*
Eliminate pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-olds, who
currently can register to vote before they turn 18.
*
Outlaw paid voter registration drives.
*
Eliminate straight-ticket voting.
*
Eliminate provisional voting if someone shows up at the wrong
precinct.
*
Prohibit counties from extending poll hours by one hour on
Election Day in extraordinary circumstances, such as in response
to long lines.
*
Allow any registered voter of a county to challenge the
eligibility of a voter rather than just a voter of the precinct
in which the suspect voter is registered.
*
Move the presidential primary to first Tuesday after South
Carolina's primary if that state holds its primary before March
15. That would mean North Carolina would have two primaries
during presidential elections.
*
Study electronic filing for campaign returns.
*
Increase the maximum allowed campaign contribution per election
from $4,000 to $5,000.
*
Loosen disclosure requirements in campaign ads paid for by
independent committees.
*
Repeal the publicly funded election program for appellate court
judges.
*
Repeal the requirement that candidates endorse ads run by their
campaigns.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53355&title=%E2%80%9CElections%20changes%20advance%20in%20Senate%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9> | Comments Off
OC Register on UCI's SCOTUS Term in Review Event
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53350>
Posted on July 23, 2013 2:24 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53350> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here. <http://t.co/dCHPVnXiQE>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53350&title=OC%20Register%20on%20UCI%E2%80%99s%20SCOTUS%20Term%20in%20Review%20Event&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments Off
"Phew:" Liberal SCOTUS Justices See Themselves as Savvy, Not Suckers
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53347>
Posted on July 23, 2013 2:12 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53347> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
In a recent Slate piece,
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/07/are_the_liberals_on_the_supreme_court_savvy_or_suckers.html>
I asked whether the liberal Justices are savvy or suckers for signing on
to recent voting rights and affirmative action rulings:
At first glance, the 7--1 vote in the /Fisher/ affirmative action
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf> case
decided by the Supreme Court is puzzling. While the decision about
the University of Texas' admissions policies was essentially a punt,
putting off for another day the future constitutionality of
affirmative action programs, two of the court's liberals (Justice
Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Stephen Breyer) joined in an opinion
that seemed to impose a very tough hurdle for any program's
constitutionality in the future. (Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
dissented, and Justice Elena Kagan recused herself). The ruling
followed a voting decision
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf> the week
before, when all four of the court's liberals signed on to Justice
Scalia's entire opinion in an Arizona voting case, which plants the
seeds for new state attacks
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/17/the-supreme-court-gives-states-new-weapons-in-the-voting-wars.html>
on federal voting laws. And in 2009, all four liberals signed onto
an opinion <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-322.ZS.html>
calling into question the constitutionality of the Voting Rights
Act, an opinion that Chief Justice John Roberts relied on heavily in
his new /Shelby County /decision
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf> striking
down part of the act.
What gives? Are the liberal justices acting as suckers for going
along with these opinions, allowing conservatives the time bombs
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1750398> to go
off
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/the-curious-disappearance-of-boerne-and-the-future-jurisprudence-of-voting-rights-and-race/>
in future cases? If, as Adam Liptak
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/us/politics/roberts-plays-a-long-game.html?pagewanted=all>,
Emily Bazelon, andI
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/opinion/the-chief-justices-long-game.html?hp>
have argued, Roberts is playing a long game to move the court far to
the right over time, why are the liberals playing along?
Well we have an answer of sorts, courtesy of Michelle Olsen
<http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/2013/07/breyer-reacts-to-affirmative-action.html>:
Gerson asked
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvv81p8UkkY&feature=youtu.be&t=39m52s>
Breyer about the Fisher affirmative action case, noting "that the
media seemed to dismiss [it] as insignificant." The Supreme Court in
Fisher returned the dispute to the lower court, eight months after
argument, with little commentary....
Bakke and Grutter held, in Breyer's admitted shorthand, that "you
can use affirmative action, but be careful, don't go too far."
When the same issue reached the Court again in Fisher, "there was a
lot of speculation," Breyer told the audience. "Would there be a
change? Would [the justices] say no affirmative action? What would
the Court do?" Breyer asked, repeating the questions on many
people's minds.
"I can tell you what the Court did do," Breyer continued, with his
characteristic verve.
"Seven members of the Court said Grutter is the law. So, what do I
say? 'Phew,'" drawing laughter. "I say that's right; that was my
view. Grutter is the law."...
"So, that's why I think it's an important case," Breyer concluded.
"Sometimes an important case is simply reaffirming another case,
which reaffirmed another case."
MORE
<http://joshblackman.com/blog/2013/07/23/why-did-breyer-but-not-ginsburg-join-roberts-in-nfib-phew/>
from Josh Blackman.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53347&title=%E2%80%9CPhew%3A%E2%80%9D%20Liberal%20SCOTUS%20Justices%20See%20Themselves%20as%20Savvy%2C%20Not%20Suckers&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off
Will Democratic FEC Commissioners Boycott Tomorrow's Meeting to Deny
Don McGahn a Quorum to Pass His Enforcement-Crushing Measure?
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53342>
Posted on July 23, 2013 1:34 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53342> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
[UPDATE: The FEC enforcement issue is being held over to a future
meeting) <http://www.fec.gov/agenda/2013/agenda20130725.shtml>.
Craig Holman
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-holman/a-parting-shot-to-neuter_b_3641120.html>:
One Democratic commissioner left in February, leaving three
Republicans and two Democrats on the Commission. McGahn is hoping to
take advantage of the partisan imbalance by proposing a "gag" order
in new enforcement guidelines
<http://www.fec.gov/agenda/2013/mtgdoc_13-21-a.pdf>, to be approved
by a 3-2 majority, that would: (i) prevent FEC staff from viewing
public resources in conducting their investigations, such as
candidate and government Web pages, news reports, business databases
and social media sites; and (ii) prohibit FEC staff from sharing
information with the Department of Justice (DOJ), which handles
criminal investigations of campaign finance scandals.
If the ability of FEC staff even to conduct an investigation can be
hamstrung from the onset, then the Commission need not face many
more embarrassing obstructionist votes. Just as importantly for
those seeking to block enforcement of the campaign finance laws, the
DOJ will also be hobbled in its criminal investigations.
Prior to announcement of McGahn's proposal, FEC General Counsel
Anthony Herman unexpectedly resigned from the agency last month.
After the announcement, Herman felt compelled to warn the FEC and
the public of the pending danger to campaign finance enforcement and
submitted public testimony to the Commission.
If the Republican commissioners continue to vote as a bloc on this
proposal, they will effectively neuter the enforcement ability of
FEC staff and hinder Justice investigations of egregious violations.
Though it is a big ask of the remaining two Democratic
commissioners, they could take a page from McGahn's playbook and not
show up at the next FEC meeting, thereby denying quorum and any
agency decision on the gag order.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53342&title=Will%20Democratic%20FEC%20Commissioners%20Boycott%20Tomorrow%E2%80%99s%20Meeting%20to%20Deny%20Don%20McGahn%20a%20Quorum%20to%20Pass%20His%20Enforcement-Crushing%20Measure%3F&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, federal
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24> | Comments Off
"The System of Campaign Finance Disclosure"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53339>
Posted on July 23, 2013 12:47 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53339>
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Anthony Johnstone has posted this draft
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2295545> online
(forthcoming, /Iowa Law Review/ /Bulletin/). It responds to Michael
Gilbert, Campaign Finance Disclosure and the Information Tradeoff
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2168343> (/Iowa Law
Review/). Here is the abstract:
This essay considers the information tradeoff model as the core
element in a dynamic system of campaign finance disclosure. First,
it recognizes several useful contributions built into the model's
framework of informational costs and benefits. In the simplest
analysis, disclosure increases the information available to voters
by adding source revelation to campaign speech. Conventional First
Amendment doctrine recognizes, however, that the reality is more
complicated. Disclosure can have a chilling effect that decreases
the amount of campaign speech by imposing administrative and
exposure burdens on speakers. As Professor Gilbert shows, this
cannot end the analysis. What matters is not just the magnitude of
the chilling effect on campaign speech, but the net "information
tradeoff" between the decrease in campaign speech and the increase
in source revelation, both of which are informative to voters.
Moreover, disclosure can "thaw" speech because source revelation
sometimes increases the expected value of speech to a speaker,
thereby encouraging some speech that would not otherwise occur.
Next, this essay builds upon the information tradeoff in several
directions, drawing on other analysts' perspectives of campaign
finance as a complex system of dynamic interactions. It refines the
cost-benefit function at the core of the information tradeoff,
extends the information tradeoff analysis across disclosure rules to
hydraulic effects at the regime level, and rises above the various
disclosure regimes to consider the information tradeoff at the
system level. A more complete analysis of the informational
consequences of campaign finance disclosure requires a systematic
account of the interactions between campaign speech and source
revelation, and their net benefits and costs to speakers and voters.
The essay concludes by suggesting that, given the difficulty of
determining the information tradeoff at the rule, regime, and system
levels, analysts, policymakers, and courts should recognize the
value of second-best solutions to campaign finance disclosure problems.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53339&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20System%20of%20Campaign%20Finance%20Disclosure%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
Comments Off
Supreme Court to Hear McCutcheon Campaign Finance Case on October 8
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53335>
Posted on July 23, 2013 12:22 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53335>
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
So reports Adam Liptak
<https://twitter.com/adamliptak/status/359754349120991233>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53335&title=Supreme%20Court%20to%20Hear%20McCutcheon%20Campaign%20Finance%20Case%20on%20October%208&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
Comments Off
--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
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/20130724/5282183e/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/20130724/5282183e/attachment.png>
View list directory