[EL] ELB News and Commentary 6/21/13---blogging schedule
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Fri Jun 21 09:13:21 PDT 2013
Just a reminder that the Election Law Blog will be down (and potentially
the listserv as well) on Saturday as UCI upgrades and moves some
servers. Also, next week Justin Levitt will be guest blogging, so
please send any tips to Justin.
"What's Taking the Supreme Court So Long?"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51930>
Posted on June 21, 2013 9:11 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51930> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I've written this piece
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/21/what-s-taking-the-supreme-court-so-long.html>
for /The Daily Beast/. It begins:
With everyone anxiously awaiting
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2013/06/20/scotus-doesn-t-rule-on-major-cases.html>
potentially blockbuster decisions on issues from affirmative action
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/fisher-v-university-of-texas-at-austin/?wpmp_switcher=desktop>
to voting rights
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/shelby-county-v-holder/?wpmp_switcher=desktop>
to same-sex
<http://%20http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/hollingsworth-v-perry/?wpmp_switcher=desktop>
marriage
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/windsor-v-united-states-2/?wpmp_switcher=desktop>,
it is easy to criticize the Supreme Court for being too slow.
After all, /Fisher,/ the affirmative-action case involving the
University of Texas, was argued in Supreme Court back in October. By
historical standards, the court is deciding
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/17/the-supreme-court-gives-states-new-weapons-in-the-voting-wars.html>
very few cases: it issued 167
<http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Clinics/Stras_Plenary_Docket.pdf>
with opinions in the 1981 term, but is expected to decide only 77
<http://%20http://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/> this term. Why
save all of the big calls
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/09/supreme-court-rulings-this-june-everything-you-need-to-know.html>
for the end? Are the justices trying to create maximum suspense to
get more attention?
These criticisms fundamentally misunderstand both the modern Supreme
Court's mission and the psychology of the justices. There may be a
lot of reasons to criticize the court, but the end-of-the-term
crunch is not one of them.
See also this piece by Joan Biskupic
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/21/us-usa-court-cliffhanger-analysis-idUSBRE95K06L20130621>
on end of term drama, and listen to the last three minutes of this Nina
Totenberg report for NPR
<http://www.npr.org/2013/06/20/193965217/supreme-court-provision-in-aids-law-violates-free-speech>which
describes a clearly stressed chief justice.
I thought this was perhaps the least controversial oped I have ever
written, and yet Andrew Cohen tweets
<https://twitter.com/CBSAndrew/status/348080180406939649>: "I disagree
with nearly every word of this." He further explains:
<https://twitter.com/CBSAndrew/status/348080576663797762>"I don't think
we should be celebrating fact that Supreme Court is going to dump 15% of
the Term on us in 2 or 3 days. Will diffuse coverage."
My view, as expressed in the Beast piece: "It is easy to see why, in the
most difficult cases, this process can take time. If we want our
justices to be deliberative, comprehensive, careful, and transparent, we
should celebrate, not bemoan, the fact that the hardest opinions come at
the end."
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51930&title=%E2%80%9CWhat%E2%80%99s%20Taking%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20So%20Long%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off
"Survey: Corporations still shun super PACs"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51927>
Posted on June 21, 2013 9:02 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51927> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/survey-corporations-still-shun-super-pacs-93154.html?hp=r3>:
"Despite the fears of progressive activists in the post-/Citizens United
/era, a new study finds that corporations are still very hesitant to
embrace super PACs."
This doesn't surprise me. I expect the giving from for profit
corporations which are not controlled by a single individual to go much
more to 501(c)(6) organizations and to 501(c)(4)s, neither of which
disclose their donors.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51927&title=%E2%80%9CSurvey%3A%20Corporations%20still%20shun%20super%20PACs%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
"High Court Ruling Spells Trouble for 501(c)(3) Restrictions"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51924>
Posted on June 21, 2013 8:54 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51924> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ezra Reese
<http://www.lawandpoliticsupdate.com/2013/06/high-court-ruling-spells-trouble-for-501c3-restrictions/>
(In the Arena): "Yesterday, the Supreme Court released its opinion in
/Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society
International, Inc
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-10_21p3.pdf>./ The
Court's opinion in /AID/ /v. Alliance /spells trouble for the Internal
Revenue Service's longstanding position that a section 501(c)(3)
organization is not merely barred from using tax-deductible funds to
engage in campaign intervention, but must not lend its imprimatur to
political activity at all."
I flagged <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51876> the interesting language
on 501c(3)s in AID v. OSI yesterday. This will get interesting.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51924&title=%E2%80%9CHigh%20Court%20Ruling%20Spells%20Trouble%20for%20501%28c%29%283%29%20Restrictions%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
Bauer on Krotoszynski on the Petition Clause
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51921>
Posted on June 21, 2013 8:49 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51921> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here <http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2013/06/petitioning-speech/>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51921&title=Bauer%20on%20Krotoszynski%20on%20the%20Petition%20Clause&description=>
Posted in petition clause <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=30> |
Comments Off
"Election Administration: A Review of the Literature and a Strategy
for Further Research" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51918>
Posted on June 21, 2013 8:48 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51918> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
If you care about election administration issues, you cannot miss these
slides by Nate Persily
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/PCEA-Persily-Presentation-6_21_2013.pptx>,
lawprof and Senior Research Director of the Bauer-Ginsberg Commission.
These are for today's meeting of the commission.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51918&title=%E2%80%9CElection%20Administration%3A%20A%20Review%20of%20the%20Literature%20and%20a%20Strategy%20for%20Further%20Research%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,
The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
"Issue Ads Show 2014 Election Savvy as They Sidestep Campaign Laws"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51915>
Posted on June 21, 2013 8:43 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51915> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
HuffPo reports
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/21/issue-ads-2014-election_n_3474425.html>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51915&title=%E2%80%9CIssue%20Ads%20Show%202014%20Election%20Savvy%20as%20They%20Sidestep%20Campaign%20Laws%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
Congratulations to J. Morgan Kousser
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51912>
Posted on June 20, 2013 4:27 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51912> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Morgan, <http://www.hss.caltech.edu/%7Ekousser/Kousser.html> one of the
country's leading historians working in the area of race and election
law, was just named William R. Kenan, Jr., Professor of History and
Social Science. Great news!
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51912&title=Congratulations%20to%20J.%20Morgan%20Kousser&description=>
Posted in election law biz <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51> |
Comments Off
Sen. Barbara Boxer "Encourages" GOP to "Take Justice Scalia's
Advice" on US Election Assistance Commission
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51909>
Posted on June 20, 2013 2:23 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51909> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Interesting spin
<http://www.boxer.senate.gov/en/press/releases/062013.cfm> on Arizona
decision.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51909&title=Sen.%20Barbara%20Boxer%20%E2%80%9CEncourages%E2%80%9D%20GOP%20to%20%E2%80%9CTake%20Justice%20Scalia%E2%80%99s%20Advice%E2%80%9D%20on%20US%20Election%20Assistance%20Commission&description=>
Posted in Election Assistance Commission
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=34>, Elections Clause
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>, Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off
"Koch Industries PAC bolts to fast start in 2013?
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51906>
Posted on June 20, 2013 2:21 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51906> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
CPI reports
<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/06/20/12874/koch-industries-pac-bolts-fast-start-2013>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51906&title=%E2%80%9CKoch%20Industries%20PAC%20bolts%20to%20fast%20start%20in%202013%E2%80%B3&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
Comments Off
"JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REACHES AGREEMENT WITH CALIFORNIA SPECIAL
DISTRICT ON BAILOUT UNDER THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51903>
Posted on June 20, 2013 2:19 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51903> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Press release about what could be the last section 5 bailout EVER:
______________________________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CRT
THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 2013 (202) 514-2007
WWW.JUSTICE.GOV <http://www.justice.gov/>
TTY (866) 544-5309
*JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REACHES AGREEMENT WITH CALIFORNIA *
*SPECIAL DISTRICT ON BAILOUT UNDER THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT*
WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department announced that it has reached an
agreement with the Linda Fire Protection District, a special district in
California, that, if approved by the court, will allow for the district
to bail out from its status as a "covered jurisdiction" under the
special provisions of the Voting Rights Act, and thereby exempt the
district from the preclearance requirements of Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act. The district covers part of Yuba County, Calif., which is a
jurisdiction subject to Section 5. The agreement is in the form of a
consent decree filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia.
Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, certain covered jurisdictions,
determined according to Section 4 of the act, are required to seek
preclearance for any changes in voting qualifications, standards,
practices or procedures from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, or from the U.S. Attorney General, prior to their
implementation. Section 4 of the act provides that a covered
jurisdiction may seek to "bail out," or remove itself from such
coverage, and therefore be exempted from the preclearance requirements,
by seeking a declaratory judgment before a three-judge panel in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia. A bailout judgment can be
issued only if the court determines that the jurisdiction meets certain
eligibility requirements for bailout contained in the statute, including
a 10-year record of nondiscrimination in voting-related actions. The act
also provides that the attorney general can consent to entry of a
judgment of bailout only if, based upon investigation, the attorney
general is satisfied that the jurisdiction meets the eligibility
requirements.
The Linda Fire Protection District filed its bailout action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia on April 10, 2013. District
officials had contacted the Attorney General prior to filing its action,
indicating that the district was interested in seeking a bailout. The
district provided the Justice Department with substantial information,
and the department conducted an investigation to determine the
district's eligibility. Based on that investigation, the department is
satisfied that the district meets the Voting Rights Act's requirements
for bailout.
"In this case, the department carefully evaluated the information
provided by the district, and conducted its own investigation, which has
satisfied us that the district is eligible for bailout," said Matthew
Colangelo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights
Division. "We appreciate the district's cooperation in the resolution
of this matter."
The consent decree details the legal and factual basis for a bailout
determination and, if approved, will grant the district's request. The
court will retain jurisdiction of the action for 10 years and can reopen
the action upon the motion of the Attorney General or any aggrieved
person alleging conduct by the district that would have originally
precluded the district from bailing out if it had occurred during the 10
year period preceding entry of the consent decree.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51903&title=%E2%80%9CJUSTICE%20DEPARTMENT%20REACHES%20AGREEMENT%20WITH%20CALIFORNIA%20%20SPECIAL%20DISTRICT%20ON%20BAILOUT%20UNDER%20THE%20VOTING%20RIGHTS%20ACT%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>,
Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
"NJ Supreme Court rejects special election challenge"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51900>
Posted on June 20, 2013 1:16 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51900> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The special Senate election is on for October
<http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/capitolinq/NJ-Supreme-Court-rejects-special-election-challenge.html>.
(h/t BAN
<http://www.ballot-access.org/2013/06/new-jersey-supreme-court-wont-hear-case-on-timing-of-special-u-s-senate-election/>.)
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51900&title=%E2%80%9CNJ%20Supreme%20Court%20rejects%20special%20election%20challenge%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59> | Comments Off
It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year (for SCOTUS Geeks)
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51896>
Posted on June 20, 2013 10:21 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51896>
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
@Slate's breakfast table
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2013/supreme_court_2013/gay_marriage_voting_rights_affirmative_action_how_will_the_supreme_court.html>is
back, with @Emily Bazelon, Walter Dellinger, and a double helping of
Posners.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51896&title=It%E2%80%99s%20the%20Most%20Wonderful%20Time%20of%20the%20Year%20%28for%20SCOTUS%20Geeks%29&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off
Question of the Day <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51892>
Posted on June 20, 2013 9:14 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51892> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
When's the last time Justice Kennedy voted /against/ a first amendment
speech claim?
Update: A reader suggests Bong Hits 4 Jesus
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-278.ZS.html>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51892&title=Question%20of%20the%20Day&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments Off
Blog Down Time and Guest Blogging <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51888>
Posted on June 20, 2013 8:32 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51888> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
On Saturday, UCI is doing some important upgrades to its computer
systems. The Election Law Blog (as well as my email) will be down for
much of the day. (The election law and legislation listservs should
function but don't count on it.)
Beginning Monday through next weekend, I'll be on a family vacation. The
great Justin Levitt
<http://www.lls.edu/aboutus/facultyadministration/faculty/facultylistl-r/levittjustin/>
will be guest blogging all week (thanks Justin!). As part of the family
deal for me to take a vacation during the most important SCOTUS week of
the year (it was the only week that worked for everyone else), I will be
coming out of vacation mode to comment/write about /Shelby County/ and
perhaps a bit on the three other big cases
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51792> as they come out next week. But
Justin will be anchoring ELB's extensive coverage of///Shelby County/.
Send any ELB tips Justin's way.
Thanks for your continued readership and support!
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51888&title=Blog%20Down%20Time%20and%20Guest%20Blogging&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments Off
Response to Pildes on Congressional Renewal of VRA
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51884>
Posted on June 20, 2013 8:18 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51884> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Via Email, responding to this <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51869>:
I, on the other hand, testified before the House Judiciary Committee
Subcommittee that part of the special provisions of the Voting
Rights Act were no longer needed---the provisions for federal
examiners who conducted listing (registration) of voters, and for
the upkeep of the lists of federally registered voters---and those
provisions were eliminated from the Act. So it is not true that
Congress did nothing to change the application of the VRA's special
provisions in the 2006 reauthorization based on examinations of
extant circumstances. The Supreme Court should respect Congress'
similar examination of the evidence and its decision that Section
5's coverage was still needed as is.
Barry Weinberg
Former Acting Chief, Voting Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S.
Department of Justice (retired in 2000)
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51884&title=Response%20to%20Pildes%20on%20Congressional%20Renewal%20of%20VRA&description=>
Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> |
Comments Off
"GUEST BLOG: Does Congress have authority to set voter
qualifications for federal elections?"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51882>
Posted on June 20, 2013 8:16 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51882> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Franita Tolson
<http://afjjusticewatch.blogspot.com/2013/06/guest-blog-does-congress-have-authority.html>:
"In Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council, the Court rightly recognizes that
the area of voting and elections is unique, but completely misses that
the story of the Elections Clause has to be told in light of the
Reconstruction Amendments and expanded congressional authority over
voter qualifications."
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51882&title=%E2%80%9CGUEST%20BLOG%3A%20Does%20Congress%20have%20authority%20to%20set%20voter%20qualifications%20for%20federal%20elections%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Elections Clause <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off
Supreme Court Case Today Discusses Earlier Case Banning 501(c)(3)
Lobbying and Elections Case <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51876>
Posted on June 20, 2013 7:46 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51876> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>From AID v. Open Society Int'l
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-10_21p3.pdf>:
A comparison of two cases helps illustrate the distinction: In Regan
v. Taxation With Representation of Washington, the Court upheld a
requirement that nonprofit organizations seeking tax-exempt status
under 26 U. S. C. §501(c)(3) not engage in substantial efforts to
influence legislation. The tax-exempt status, we explained, "ha[d]
much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization."461 U. S.,
at 544. And by limiting §501(c)(3) status to organizations that did
not attempt to influence legislation,Congress had merely "chose[n]
not to subsidize lobbying." Ibid. In rejecting the nonprofit's First
Amendment claim,the Court highlighted---in the text of its opinion,
but see post, at 5---the fact that the condition did not prohibit
that organization from lobbying Congress altogether. By returning to
a "dual structure" it had used in the past---separately
incorporating as a §501(c)(3) organization and §501(c)(4)
organization---the nonprofit could continue to claim §501(c)(3)
status for its nonlobbying activities, while attempting to influence
legislation in its §501(c)(4) capacity with separate funds. Ibid.
Maintaining such a structure, the Court noted, was not "unduly
burdensome." Id., at 545, n. 6. The condition thus did not deny the
organization a government benefit "on account of its intention to
lobby." Id., at 545.
In FCC v. League of Women Voters of California, by contrast, the
Court struck down a condition on federal financial assistance to
noncommercial broadcast television and radio stations that
prohibited all editorializing, including with private funds. 468 U.
S. 364, 399--401 (1984).Even a station receiving only one percent of
its overall budget from the Federal Government, the Court explained,
was "barred absolutely from all editorializing." Id., at 400. Unlike
the situation in Regan, the law provided no way for a station to
limit its use of federal funds to noneditorializing activities,
while using private funds "to make known its views on matters of
public importance." 468 U. S., at 400. The prohibition thus went
beyond ensuring that federal funds not be used to subsidize "public
broadcasting" and instead leveraged the federal funding to regulate
the stations' speech outside the scope of the program. Id., at 399
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51876&title=Supreme%20Court%20Case%20Today%20Discusses%20Earlier%20Case%20Banning%20501%28c%29%283%29%20Lobbying%20and%20Elections%20Case&description=>
Posted in lobbying <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28> | Comments Off
Does Mandatory Voting Change Politics?
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51874>
Posted on June 20, 2013 7:44 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51874> by
Richard Pildes <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>
Australia established the secret ballot (initially called in the U.S.
"the Australian ballot") and was one of the first countries to enact
universal suffrage. Australia also established mandatory voting
nationwide in 1924. While there has been some writing on how mandatory
voting affects turnout or the theoretical arguments regarding whether
it's appropriate to mandate that people vote, including this article
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1314963>by Rick
Hasen, few studies exist of whether mandatory voting affects the
substantive policies elected governments end up adopting. That's why
this new empirical study by Anthony Fowler, of Harvard's Government
Department, caught my eye. The full article is at thislink
<http://www.nowpublishers.com/articles/quarterly-journal-of-political-science/QJPS-12055>;
here is the abstract:
Despite extensive research on voting, there is little evidence
connecting turnout to tangible outcomes. Would election results and
public policy be different if everyone voted? The adoption of
compulsory voting in Australia provides a rare opportunity to
address this question. First, I collect two novel data sources to
assess the extent of turnout inequality in Australia before
compulsory voting. Overwhelmingly, wealthy citizens voted more than
their working-class counterparts. Next, exploiting the differential
adoption of compulsory voting across states, I find that the policy
increased voter turnout by 24 percentage points which in turn
increased the vote shares and seat shares of the Labor Party by
7--10 percentage points. Finally, comparing across OECD countries, I
find that Australia's adoption of compulsory voting significantly
increased turnout and pension spending at the national level.
Results suggest that democracies with voluntary voting do not
represent the preferences of all citizens. Instead, increased voter
turnout can dramatically alter election outcomes and resulting
public policies.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D51874&title=Does%20Mandatory%20Voting%20Change%20Politics%3F&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>, voting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31> | 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/20130621/bfb6251c/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/20130621/bfb6251c/attachment.png>
View list directory