[EL] ELB News and Commentary 6/19/13
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Tue Jun 18 08:46:02 PDT 2013
<http://electionlawblog.org/>
Why Would the Court's Liberals Go Along with Justice Scalia's Time
Bombs in Arizona Elections Case? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51773>
Posted on June 18, 2013 8:41 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51773> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
In Anticipatory Overrulings, Invitations, Time Bombs, and Inadvertence:
How Supreme Court Justices Move the Law,
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1750398>61 /Emory
Law Journal/ 779 (2012), I discuss different methods Justices use to
move the law in their preferred direction aside from getting a majority
to agree with a direct holding. One of the most important is the "time
bomb." As I explained:
Justices are sometimes more subtle than they are with invitations[
to litigants to ask the Court to overrule past precedent]. I became
familiar with the "time bombs" concept from Seth Stern and Steve
Wermiel's fascinating 2010 biography of Justice Brennan. Discussing
Justice O'Connor's reluctance to join one of Justice Brennan's
opinions, the authors wrote, "O'Connor had taken to heart [Justice]
Powell's warnings that Brennan planted 'time bombs' in his opinions.
She had learned to watch for those seemingly offhand, throwaway
phrases that he exploited in later cases.
Yesterday's opinion in Arizona v. Inter-Tribal Council
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/arizona-intertribal.pdf>
is full of time bombs from Justice Scalia. Not only does he explain how
Arizona might go to court to get an order compelling the FEC to alter
the federal form to conform with the state's citizenship requirements,
he also draws a broad distinction between federal power to set the
/manner/ of elections and its lack of power to prescribe voter
/qualifications./ (This was the main point of my /Daily //Beast /piece
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/17/the-supreme-court-gives-states-new-weapons-in-the-voting-wars.html>
yesterday, as well as Marty Lederman's SCOTUSBlog post
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/17/the-supreme-court-gives-states-new-weapons-in-the-voting-wars.html>and
much in line with Lyle Denniston's analysis
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/opinion-recap-one-hand-giveth/>.)
Justice Scalia's footnote all but burying a key part of /Oregon v.
Mitchell/ on the right of Congress to require states to allow 18 year
olds to vote in federal elections is sure to give states new powers to
challenge federal voting rules. He suggests that arguments such as
Arizona's should be recast as challenges to registration rules and that
they may have much greater success.
It is true that all of the Scalia language in yesterday's opinion (on
pages 13-17) is full of "might" and "could" language---most of it is
dicta. Justice Alito notes those facts in the dissent. But this is scary
stuff forthose who worry
<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2013/06/court-states-id/>about some
states cutting back on voting rights. So the mystery to me is: why would
the liberals on the Court go along with all this? Why not just join
Justice Scalia's opinion in part? After all, as a former clerk to
Justice O'Connor emailed me, it looks like Justice Scalia is trying to
provide a roadmap for states to implement voter id laws over federal
objection.
Without inside knowledge from the Court, the answer is unclear. Here are
a few possibilities, though I would be open to hearing others:
(1) The liberals were thrilled to get an opinion from Justice Scalia
with a very muscular reading of Congress's Elections Clause power. That
battle is won, and other fights over qualifications and state challenges
to federal voting rules can wait the next day. Note in Marty's revised
post comments from Rick Pildes emphasizing the importance of the win in
yesterday's case.
(2) The liberals agree with Justice Scalia on the dicta on pages 13-17,
and they think these issues are better left to the states. (That seems
unlikely to me, given divides in cases like /Crawford/).
(3) As Marty suggests in his post, there's a larger end game here
involving /Shelby County/, and reliance on the Elections Clause in that
case to uphold section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
I'm open to other ideas.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51773&title=Why%20Would%20the%20Court%E2%80%99s%20Liberals%20Go%20Along%20with%20Justice%20Scalia%E2%80%99s%20Time%20Bombs%20in%20Arizona%20Elections%20Case%3F&description=>
Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,
Elections Clause <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>, Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
"High Court Strikes Down Voting Law in Arizona"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51770>
Posted on June 18, 2013 8:21 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51770> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ted Robbins reports
<http://www.npr.org/2013/06/18/192996781/high-court-strikes-down-voting-law-in-arizona>
for NPR from Arizona.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51770&title=%E2%80%9CHigh%20Cout%20Stirkes%20Down%20Voting%20Law%20in%20Arizona%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Elections Clause <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off
"Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council: Opinions Have Layers"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51767>
Posted on June 18, 2013 7:49 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51767> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
A ChapinBlog
<http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/electionacademy/2013/06/arizona_v_inter_tribal_council.php>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51767&title=%E2%80%9CArizona%20v.%20Inter%20Tribal%20Council%3A%20Opinions%20Have%20Layers%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Elections Clause <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off
"Supreme Court decision in Berry v. Crawford posted"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51764>
Posted on June 18, 2013 7:45 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51764> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Indiana Law Blog
<http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2013/06/ind_decisions_s_885.html>on
the case of the fleeing legislators.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51764&title=%E2%80%9CSupreme%20Court%20decision%20in%20Berry%20v.%20Crawford%20posted%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in legislation and legislatures
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27> | Comments Off
WaPo Editorial on Arizona Case: We Need Universal Voter Registration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51760>
Posted on June 18, 2013 7:41 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51760> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-supreme-court-finds-in-favor-of-more-access-to-the-polls/2013/06/17/7636df64-d794-11e2-9df4-895344c13c30_story.html>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51760&title=WaPo%20Editorial%20on%20Arizona%20Case%3A%20We%20Need%20Universal%20Voter%20Registration&description=>
Posted in Elections Clause <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off
"The Court and States in the Age of Voter ID"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51758>
Posted on June 18, 2013 7:40 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51758> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bob Bauer: <http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2013/06/court-states-id/>
So this is the question being debated about the Court opinion in the
Arizona voting law pre-emption case: is it a major victory for the
federal government, or just a win in this case, with the longer term
effects to lie more on the side of the states' authority to shape
voting rights in federal elections? Forecasts range from sunny
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/18/opinion/the-court-congress-regulates-federal-elections.html?hp&_r=0>(/The
New York Times/) to cloudy
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51715>(Hasen) to stormy
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/pyrrhic-victory-for-federal-government-in-arizona-voter-registration-case/>(Lederman)...
Otherwise Arizona does well. It is encouraged to seek other means of
appending a documentation requirement to the Federal Form, and the
Justice believes that in the circumstances, it may have available to
it a constitutional remedy. And though by no means a requirement of
deciding the case, he musters a clear majority for the proposition
that states have control over voter qualifications. Perhaps this is
the better view, but the Court seems in quite the rush to decide it.
There is much argument still to occur over this case, in law reviews
and elsewhere, but when the doctrinal fine points have been fully
explored, it will remain the case that the Arizona decision is hard
to think about without reference to the contemporary struggles over
voting rights. In /Crawford/, Justice Souter counseled close
attention to "the lessons of history" in judging the weight to be
assigned to states' asserted interests, such as "the interest in
combating voter fraud [that] has too often served as a cover for
unnecessarily restrictive electoral rules." /Crawford/, 553 U.S. at
230, n.32 (Souter, J.. dissenting). In the age of voter ID and other
state-imposed burden on the right to vote, the Court seems to
discount or disregard that history. Critics are concerned that it is
a history in the process of repeating itself.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51758&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Court%20and%20States%20in%20the%20Age%20of%20Voter%20ID%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Elections Clause <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9> | Comments Off
"More Information Emerges About IRS Targeting Of Tea Party Groups"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51755>
Posted on June 18, 2013 7:36 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51755> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NPR <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=191713599>:
Last month, when news broke that the IRS had improperly targeted Tea
Party groups for extra scrutiny, the original message from the IRS
was that it was the work of a couple of rogue agents in the
Cincinnati field office. Congressional investigators have been
talking to those employees and generating hundreds of pages of
transcripts.
Well, today, NPR's Tamara Keith was able to look at the full
transcripts of interviews with two IRS agents. And they appear to
dispute that rogue agent description. Tamara joins us now from
Capitol Hill. And tell us more about what exactly you got to read today.
TAMARA KEITH, BYLINE: So we got to read the full transcripts, a
total of 360 pages of two interviews with agents in the Cincinnati
office. These were interviews with congressional investigators.
You know, so far, we've seen snippets that have been released by
Democrats and Republicans. And these snippets sort of fit the
politics of what they were trying to show.
These transcripts are the full transcripts. And in some ways,
they're more nuanced. They're also, in some ways, more mundane. You
know, we get a lot of information about computer systems and things
like that. But we do get a full view of at least what these two
employees feel happened.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51755&title=%E2%80%9CMore%20Information%20Emerges%20About%20IRS%20Targeting%20Of%20Tea%20Party%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
Douglas: "A Silver Lining to the 'States Rights' Portion of Justice
Scalia's Opinion" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51752>
Posted on June 18, 2013 7:32 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51752> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here is a guest post from Josh Douglas
<http://www.law.uky.edu/index.php?hid=93>:
Justice Scalia, in his majority opinion in /Arizona v. Inter Tribal
Council/, explained that "Arizona is correct that the Elections
Clause empowers Congress to regulate /how/ federal elections are
held, but not /who/ may vote in them." The point, for Justice
Scalia, is that Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution gives
Congress the power to regulate only the "times, places, and manner"
-- the "how" -- of elections, but under Article I, Section 2, states
retain the ability to determine the qualification of electors, even
for federal offices -- the "who" may vote.
This language from Justice Scalia's opinion has caused some concern
among the voting rights community. Allowing states to determine
voter qualifications could open the door to restrictive
requirements, such as strict voter ID laws.
But there may actually be a silver lining within state qualification
rules themselves. As I recount in a new paper
<http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2234762>, virtually all state
constitutions -- which include the state's voter qualification
requirements -- explicitly grant the right to vote to the state's
citizens before listing the required qualifications voters must
possess. For example, Wisconsin's Constitution -- the subject of
recent voter ID litigation -- provides that "Every United States
citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in
this state is a qualified elector of that district." That is, most
state constitutions explicitly grant the right to vote and then
provide several voter qualifications, which are typically age,
citizenship, and residence. A few state constitutions also take the
right away for those who are mentally incompetent or convicted
felons. (Interestingly, Arizona's is the only state constitution
that does not include an explicit grant of voting rights, but it
does provide that elections shall be "free and equal.") Additional
qualifications that are not enumerated in the state constitution
would violate this explicit grant of the right to vote. The
problem, however, is that many state courts have "lockstepped" their
state constitutions with federal jurisprudence for the right to vote
under the U.S. Constitution, reading the state constitutional
provision to go no further than the U.S. Constitution. Of course,
the U.S. Constitution does not grant the right to vote; it is
implied within the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. And recent Supreme Court jurisprudence on federal
protection for the right to vote has been quite limited.
If Justice Scalia is correct that state qualification rules are what
matters and that Congress has no authority to determine
qualifications under the U.S. Constitution, then state courts are
wrong in using the "lockstep" approach for their constitutional
right to vote provisions. These clauses are broader than the
protection afforded under the U.S. Constitution. They should
therefore operate to enjoin strict legislatively-enacted voter
qualification requirements, even if those requirements may be
permissible under the federal Equal Protection Clause.
In short, Justice Scalia's push for a renewed focus on state
qualification rules might actually be a move in the right direction
for voters, at least where it comes to the constitutional right to
vote. The question is whether state courts will follow suit and
give their constitutional provisions the independent meaning and
scope their language requires.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51752&title=Douglas%3A%20%E2%80%9CA%20Silver%20Lining%20to%20the%20%E2%80%98States%20Rights%E2%80%99%20Portion%20of%20Justice%20Scalia%E2%80%99s%20Opinion%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Elections Clause <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off
Quote of the Night <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51748>
Posted on June 17, 2013 9:29 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51748> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
"I think it's preposterous that seven people can overturn the votes of
over one million Arizona voters to say the honor system works [to verify
a voter's citizenship...] It's a bunch of baloney. It's nuts."
--"Kathy McKee
<http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20130617court-arizona-citizenship-proof-law-illegal.html>,
an activist who helped launch the effort for Proposition 200
<http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20130316proposition-200-history-timeline.html>,
criticiz[ing] the 'idiot judges' who ruled against Arizona."
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51748&title=Quote%20of%20the%20Night&description=>
Posted in Elections Clause <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off
A Spruced Up Election Law Blog Sidebar
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51743>
Posted on June 17, 2013 9:16 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51743> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I have updated some information, removed dead links, added some new
blogs and sites to the Election Law blogroll, linked to forthcoming and
recent academic papers and commentaries, and otherwise eliminated some
coding problems.
If you see any remaining problems, or have any suggestions for
inclusions, deletions or improvements, please let me know and I'll
consider it.
Below the fold I've moved academic articles from 2009-2010 that I've
moved off the Sidebar.
Thanks for reading!
Continue reading ? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51743#more-51743>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51743&title=A%20Spruced%20Up%20Election%20Law%20Blog%20Sidebar&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments Off
My Op-Eds and Commentaries, 2010-11
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51741>
Posted on June 17, 2013 9:06 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51741> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I am moving them off the sidebar of the blog as I spruce things up
around here.
Holder's Voting Rights Gamble: The Supreme Court's Voter ID Showdown
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/12/the_obama_administration_s_risky_voter_id_move_threatens_the_voting_rights_act.html>,
/Slate/, Dec. 30, 2011
Will Foreigners Decide the 2012 Election? The Extreme Unintended
Consequences of Citizens United
<http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98162/citizens-united-foreign-money>,
/The New Republic (online)/, Dec. 6, 2011
Disenfranchise No More
<http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/disenfranchise-no-more/?ref=opinion>,
/New York Times/, Nov. 17, 2011
A Democracy Deficit at Americans Elect?
<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67965.html>, /Politico/, Nov.
9, 2011
Super-Soft Money: How Justice Kennedy paved the way for 'SuperPACS' and
the return of soft money
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/10/citizens_united_how_justice_kennedy_has_paved_the_way_for_the_re.single.html>,
/Slate/, Oct. 25, 2012
The Arizona Campaign Finance Law: The Surprisingly Good News in the
Supreme Court's New Decision
<http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/90834/arizona-campaign-finance-supreme-court>,
/The New Republic (online)/, June 27, 2011
New York City as a Model?
<http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/06/27/the-court-and-the-future-of-public-financing/new-york-city-as-a-model-for-campaign-finance-laws>,
/New York Times/ Room for Debate, June 27, 2011
A Cover-Up, Not a Crime. Why the Case Against John Edwards May Be Hard
to Prove <http://www.slate.com/id/2296188/>, /Slate/, Jun. 3, 2011
Wisconsin Court Election Courts Disaster
<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52683.html>, /Politico/, Apr.
11, 2011
Rich Candidate Expected to Win Again <http://www.slate.com/id/2289193/>,
/Slate/, Mar. 25, 2011
Health Care and the Voting Rights Act
<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48832.html>, /Politico/, Feb.
4, 2011
The FEC is as Good as Dead <http://www.slate.com/id/2282257/>, /Slate/,
Jan. 25, 2011
Let Rahm Run! <http://www.slate.com/id/2282287/>, /Slate/, Jan. 24, 2011
Lobbypalooza
<http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=911>,/The
American Interest/, Jan-Feb. 2011(with Ellen P. Aprill)
Election Hangover: The Real Legacy of /Bush v. Gore/
<http://www.slate.com/id/2276710/>, /Slate/, Dec. 3, 2010
Alaska's Big Spelling Test: How strong is Joe Miller's argument against
the Leeza Markovsky vote? <http://www.slate.com/id/2274556/>, /Slate/,
Nov. 11, 2010
Kirk Offers Hope vs. Secret Donors
<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44718.html>, /Politico/,
November 5, 2010
Evil Men in Black Robes: /Slate/'s Judicial Election Campaign Ad
Spooktackular! <http://www.slate.com/id/2272086/>, /Slate/, October 26,
2010 (with Dahlia Lithwick)
Show Me the Donors: What's the point of disclosing campaign donations?
Let's review <http://www.slate.com/id/2271187/>, /Slate/, October 14, 2010
Un-American Influence: Could Foreign Spending on Elections Really Be
Legal? <http://www.slate.com/id/2270662/>, /Slate/, October 11, 2010
Toppled Castle: The real loser in the Tea Party wins is election reform
<http://www.slate.com/id/2267657/>, /Slate/, Sept. 16, 2010
Citizens United: What the Court Did--and Why
<http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=853>,
/American Interest/, July/August 2010
The Big Ban Theory: Does Elena Kagan Want to Ban Books? No, and She
Might Even Be a Free Speech Zealot" <http://www.slate.com/id/2254830/>,
/Slate/, May 24, 2010
Crush Democracy But Save the Kittens: Justice Alito's Double Standard
for the First Amendment <http://www.slate.com/id/2252536/>, /Slate/,
Apr. 30, 2010
Some Skepticism About the "Separable Preferences" Approach to the Single
Subject Rule: A Comment on Cooter & Gilbert
<http://www.columbialawreview.org/articles/some-skepticism-about-the-separable-preferences-approach-to-the-single-subject-rule-a-comment-on-cooter-gilbert>,
/Columbia Law Review Sidebar/, Apr. 19, 2010
Scalia's Retirement Party: Looking ahead to a conservative vacancy can
help the Democrats at the polls <http://www.slate.com/id/2250579/>,
/Slate/, Apr. 12, 2010
Hushed Money: Could Karl Rove's New 527 Avoid Campaign-Finance
Disclosure Requirements? <http://www.slate.com/id/2249952/>, /Slate/,
Apr. 6, 2010
Money Grubbers: The Supreme Court Kills Campaign Finance Reform
<http://www.slate.com/id/2242209/>, /Slate/, Jan. 21, 2010
Bad News for Judicial Elections
<http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/how-corporate-money-will-reshape-politics/#richard>,
/N.Y. Times "Room for Debate" Blog/, Jan., 21, 2010
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51741&title=My%20Op-Eds%20and%20Commentaries%2C%202010-11&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments Off
Credit Where Credit is Due Dept <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51733>
Posted on June 17, 2013 5:42 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51733> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Credit Derek Muller
<https://twitter.com/derektmuller/status/346638063872647168> for first
noting
<http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/supreme-court-cites-bush-v-gore-for-first>
the Supreme Court's first citation of Bush v. Gore in today's Arizona
voting decision.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51733&title=Credit%20Where%20Credit%20is%20Due%20Dept&description=>
Posted in Bush v. Gore reflections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=5>,
Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off
"Voting Rights Groups Get High Court Win As Bigger Case Looms"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51730>
Posted on June 17, 2013 4:35 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51730> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Frank James reports
<http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/06/17/192787352/voting-rights-groups-get-high-court-win-as-bigger-case-looms?ft=1&f=1014>
for NPR.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51730&title=%E2%80%9CVoting%20Rights%20Groups%20Get%20High%20Court%20Win%20As%20Bigger%20Case%20Looms%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Elections Clause <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
"This Time, Scalia Doesn't Want to See Your Papers"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51727>
Posted on June 17, 2013 4:31 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51727> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Read Emily Bazelon
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/antonin_scalia_strikes_down_arizona_s_voter_registration_law_supreme_court.single.html>
on today's Arizona voting decision.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51727&title=%E2%80%9CThis%20Time%2C%20Scalia%20Doesn%E2%80%99t%20Want%20to%20See%20Your%20Papers%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Elections Clause <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9> | Comments Off
"Supreme Court Strikes Down Arizona Voting Rule"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51725>
Posted on June 17, 2013 3:34 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51725> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Nina Totenberg reports
<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=192790981#> for NPR.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51725&title=%E2%80%9CSupreme%20Court%20Strikes%20Down%20Arizona%20Voting%20Rule%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Elections Clause <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off
"The Election Law Connection and U.S. Federalism"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51722>
Posted on June 17, 2013 1:57 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51722> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Kirsten Nussbaumer has postedthis timely paper
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2110776> on SSRN
(forthcoming, /Publius/). Here is the abstract:
Addressing the comparative-federalism literature, this article
offers a sketch of how the unique character of U.S. election law may
have shaped U.S. federalism as a whole --- hypothesizing that the
extent to which each level of government has controlled the other's
electoral arena may have partly determined each government's
relative policy autonomy, and thereby impinged upon the direct
constituency relationship between each level of government and its
voters.
The article proposes that we view "the election-law connection"
between state and federal officials as a central field where
'federalism happens' --- where the making and implementing of a
shared election law has given rise to linked electoral incentives
and intergovernmental networking, expressed most notably in
strategic relationships that are keyed to state and local
decision-making forums. Over time, the law of U.S. federal elections
has exhibited complex patterns of mutual dependence between federal
and state officials, but the dominant pattern has been a
state-tilted story of subnational control over federal election law
--- to the extent that it may be meaningful to conceptualize the
election-law connection as a 'constituency relationship' that tends
to work to the benefit of the state and local actors who exercise
control over the federal electoral arena. This electoral dependency
of federal officials may have created a tendency towards greater
federal respect for the institutional prerogatives of state and
local governments, though the relationship is dynamic and
contingent, interacting with other interests and factors such as the
prevalence of divided or unified party government at the national
and state levels.
The argument --- while offered as an exercise in deductive
theory-building more than empirical conclusion --- is illustrated
with recent election-law examples, especially intergovernmental
communications about congressional redistricting that exhibit
patterns of federal-to-state lobbying (a decentralized or 'downward'
pattern not previously considered in the scholarly literatures). The
election-law connection is also explored through a reading of two
canonical texts in the literature on "political safeguards of
federalism" (Herbert Wechsler 1954, Larry Kramer 2000), joining
their insights about constitutional history and political parties
with the election-law-focused account here (itself, a friendly
amendment to that theory), while contending that the "political
safeguards" explanation of U.S. history is more plausible when
combined with a relational, strategic understanding of election-law
incentives.
Finally, the constituency conception of the election-law connection
gains added plausibility through a consideration of the large gap
between, on the one hand, Congress's arguable preemption power over
federal elections and, on the other hand, the historical patterns of
relative congressional abstention in formal law-making, and the
federal legislative tendency to de-centralize many partisan and
factional conflicts about election law.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51722&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Election%20Law%20Connection%20and%20U.S.%20Federalism%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Elections Clause <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70> |
Comments Off
"BREAKING: Morgan sentenced to year in prison"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51719>
Posted on June 17, 2013 1:52 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51719> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
South Bend Tribune
<http://www.southbendtribune.com/news/sbt-former-democratic-party-leader-butch-morgan-in-court-for-sentencing-20130617,0,1972333.story>:
"The former chairman of the St. Joseph County Democratic Party will
serve one year in prison for his role in a scheme to forge signatures
onto petitions that qualified Democratic candidates for the state's 2008
primary election."
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51719&title=%E2%80%9CBREAKING%3A%20Morgan%20sentenced%20to%20year%20in%20prison%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, election
administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, petition signature
gathering <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=39> | Comments Off
Thought of the Day <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51715>
Posted on June 17, 2013 1:23 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51715> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Lesson <http://thebea.st/12QTSz0> about the Supreme Court from today's
voting decision: behind every silver lining there's a dark cloud.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51715&title=Thought%20of%20the%20Day&description=>
Posted in Elections Clause <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off
Scalia's Voter Access Case <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51712>
Posted on June 17, 2013 1:18 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51712> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Spencer Overton blogs
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/spencer-overton/scalias-voter-access-case_b_3455733.html>
at HuffPo.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51712&title=Scalia%E2%80%99s%20Voter%20Access%20Case&description=>
Posted in Elections Clause <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off
"The Supreme Court's decision on Arizona won't put an end to voting
wars" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51710>
Posted on June 17, 2013 12:48 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51710>
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WonkBlog reports
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/17/the-supreme-courts-decision-on-arizona-wont-put-an-end-to-voting-wars/>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51710&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%99s%20decision%20on%20Arizona%20won%E2%80%99t%20put%20an%20end%20to%20voting%20wars%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
"How the Voting Rights Act Hurts Democrats and Minorities"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51707>
Posted on June 17, 2013 12:44 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51707>
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Steven Hill writes
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/how-the-voting-rights-act-hurts-democrats-and-minorities/276893/>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51707&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20Hurts%20Democrats%20and%20Minorities%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in alternative voting systems
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>, redistricting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
"The SEC and Dark Political Money"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51704>
Posted on June 17, 2013 12:42 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51704>
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy blogs
<http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/17/the-sec-and-dark-political-money/>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51704&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20SEC%20and%20Dark%20Political%20Money%E2%80%9D&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
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/20130618/8b8ac644/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/20130618/8b8ac644/attachment.png>
View list directory