[EL] will today's decision revive the EAC?
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Mon Jun 17 15:03:02 PDT 2013
But the point, in relation to Richard's initial question (why not revive
the EAC?), is that Arizona doesn't need the EAC to make that call---it
can take the issue to court, where it would probably end up anyway even
if there were a quorum at the EAC to decide the question.
On 6/17/13 3:01 PM, Marty Lederman wrote:
> Agreed -- the test won't be "anything AZ wants." The most obvious
> question left open (deliberately) is what the showing has to be. I
> wrote this: Notably, the Court does not resolve what sort of showing
> Arizona would have to make to demonstrate that the "mere oath" does
> not "suffice," other than to say that Arizona must be able to obtain
> "the information necessary to enforce its voter qualifications."
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Richard Winger
> <richardwinger at yahoo.com <mailto:richardwinger at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> It seems to me Arizona couldn't win a court case to force the EAC
> staff let Arizona amend the federal form that is used inside
> Arizona, without proving to the court that there is a real,
> genuine need for the Arizona questions.
>
> If Arizona can do anything it wants, it could theoretically
> require voters using the federal form to attach a certified copy
> of a birth certificate or a certificate of naturalization. Even
> Arizona doesn't seem to want that much documentation. If Arizona
> could do anything it wants, it might say it is worried that
> under-age individuals are registering to vote, and therefore it
> needs to see every applicant's birth certificate. If it doesn't
> want ex-felons to register, theoretically it could even demand
> that the applicant produce a report from law enforcement agencies
> testifying that the applicant has no record of a felony
> conviction. There surely are limits.
>
> Richard Winger
> 415-922-9779 <tel:415-922-9779>
> PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>
> --- On *Mon, 6/17/13, Marty Lederman /<lederman.marty at gmail.com
> <mailto:lederman.marty at gmail.com>>/* wrote:
>
>
> From: Marty Lederman <lederman.marty at gmail.com
> <mailto:lederman.marty at gmail.com>>
> Subject: Re: [EL] will today's decisoin revive the EAC?
> To: "Rick Hasen" <rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>
> Cc: richardwinger at yahoo.com <mailto:richardwinger at yahoo.com>,
> law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
> Date: Monday, June 17, 2013, 2:45 PM
>
> "the court will simply order EAC employees to accommodate
> Arizona on the federal form'
>
> or, as the footnote suggests, if the court can't mandamus the
> EAC employees, it might simply declare that Arizona can deny
> registration absent further proof of citizenship, Federal Form
> notwithstanding.
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Rick Hasen
> <rhasen at law.uci.edu <http://mc/compose?to=rhasen@law.uci.edu>>
> wrote:
>
> I don't see that Richard. That would just delay things in
> the Arizona case. Now Arizona can go to court and demand
> that the EAC act. When it can't because of the lack of a
> quorum to act, the court will simply order EAC employees
> to accommodate Arizona on the federal form.
>
> More broadly, the Republicans I've spoken who oppose the
> EAC see it as a failed agency that does the bidding of
> Democrats. So why revive it for a single case?
>
>
>
> On 6/17/13 2:37 PM, Richard Winger wrote:
>> Maybe Republicans in Congress will now want to see the
>> EAC in operation? I would expect at least Arizona's
>> Republican members of Congress would favor that.
>>
>> Richard Winger
>> 415-922-9779
>> PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <http://mc/compose?to=Law-election@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 <http://mc/compose?to=rhasen@law.uci.edu>
> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <http://mc/compose?to=Law-election@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
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130617/58896b26/attachment.html>
View list directory