[EL] ELB News and Commentary: 6/26/2013 Part Two
Justin Levitt
levittj at lls.edu
Wed Jun 26 21:11:23 PDT 2013
Did you know you had a National Taxpayer Advocate?
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52288>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 9:09 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52288>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
It's true <http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/About-TAS>. And today,
in addition to herusual annual retrospective report
<http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/Annual-Reports-To-Congress/Reports-To-Congress>and
her usual annual look forward, Nina Olson issued a Special Report to
Congress concerning political activity and tax-exempt status.
An introduction ishere
<http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/2014ObjectivesReport/Special-Report>;
the report ishere
<http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/userfiles/file/FullReport/Special-Report.pdf>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52288&title=Did%20you%20know%20you%20had%20a%20National%20Taxpayer%20Advocate%3F&description=>
Posted intax law and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
|Comments Off
Coverage of the National Taxpayer Advocate's Report
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52286>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 9:09 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52286>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
The AP's headline: "IRS Delayed Action On Progressive Groups, Too
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/watchdog-irs-fought-oversight-tea-party-cases>"
The Wall St. Journal's headline: "Taxpayer Advocate Cites Difficulty
With IRS Division
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/26/taxpayer-advocate-cites-cultural-difficulty-with-irs-division/>"
The USA Today headline: "IRS taxpayer advocate suggests 'apology
payments'
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/26/irs-apology-payments/2457923/>"
The BNA headline (paywall): "IRS May Have Broken Law in Handling Of
501(c)(4) Applications, Olson Says
<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/display/link_res.adp?lt=email&fname=A0D9Q4X4W2&lf=eml&emc=mpdm:mpdm:110>."
For clarification, the highlighted law is a requirement that the IRS
"post on its website all instructions to staff that affect a member of
the public."
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52286&title=Coverage%20of%20the%20National%20Taxpayer%20Advocate%E2%80%99s%20Report&description=>
Posted intax law and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
|Comments Off
"Lawmakers Express Growing Concern Over Objectivity of TIGTA Audit
on Exempts" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52284>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 9:08 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52284>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Vigorous letter-writing continues
<http://democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/press-release/levin-presses-tigta-claim-it-narrowly-focused-tea-party-issa%E2%80%99s-direction>,
from Rep. Levin. The concern appears to be that the Treasury IG for Tax
Administration "narrowly focused on the treatment of tea party
organizations" when other organizations appear also to have been subject
to additional scrutiny for political activity.
BNA
<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/display/link_res.adp?lt=email&fname=A0D9Q5A2A9&lf=eml&emc=mpdm:mpdm:111>(paywall)
has more.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52284&title=%E2%80%9CLawmakers%20Express%20Growing%20Concern%20Over%20Objectivity%20of%20TIGTA%20Audit%20on%20Exempts%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted intax law and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
|Comments Off
Re-redistricting in the news <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52282>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 9:07 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52282>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
This report begins
<http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/307969-dems-look-to-limit-state-redistricting-after-supreme-court-ruling>:
" Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) is introducing legislation that
would block states from rearranging their congressional districts until
after a 10-year Census takes place, a reaction to the Supreme Court
ruling striking down a key portion of the Voting Rights Act."
Michael McDonald and I discussedmid-decade redrawing of district lines
<http://ssrn.com/abstract=986081>after the last Texas re-redistricting.
In most states, there are fewer clear existing legal barriers to this
than conventional wisdom suggests.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52282&title=Re-redistricting%20in%20the%20news&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> |Comments Off
"Perry signs redistricting maps" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52280>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 9:07 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52280>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
And now
<http://www.statesman.com/news/news/perry-signs-redistricting-maps/nYXFZ/>,
a whole new round of redistricting litigation in Texas resumes. Ah, the
circle of life.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52280&title=%E2%80%9CPerry%20signs%20redistricting%20maps%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> |Comments Off
New Kansas photo ID lawsuit filed <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52278>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 9:06 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52278>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Trying tokeep Texas company <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52253>, I
suppose. Fromthis report
<http://cjonline.com/news/state/2013-06-26/lawsuit-challenges-state-photo-id-election-law>:
Hamner and Spry, who didn't have a government-issued identity card
with a photograph proving they were Kansans in good standing, voted
with provisional ballots in November 2012. Their ballots weren't
counted because neither subsequently provided sufficient proof of
their identity.
. . .
Lawing said neither man had access to birth records necessary to
secure a picture ID. The retirement home residents don't have a
driver's license nor do they own computers or the resources to apply
for a free ID from the state.
I'll post the complaint here if I can get a copy.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52278&title=New%20Kansas%20photo%20ID%20lawsuit%20filed&description=>
Posted invoter id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9> |Comments Off
David Schultz on ranked choice voting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52276>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 9:06 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52276>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Schultzdiscusses the ranked choice system
<http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/blog/david-schultz/ranked-choice-voting-and-people-v-plutocrats-and-political-scientists>and
the Minneapolis mayor's race.
Note that there's anongoing dispute
<http://leastevil.blogspot.com/2013/06/red-crayon-statistics.html>about
spoiled ballots and errorsin 2009
<http://www.nonprofitvote.org/doc_view/165-minneapolis-rcv-final-report-2010-schultz>:
it will be interesting to see if the rate drops this year, with a little
more voter experience.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52276&title=David%20Schultz%20on%20ranked%20choice%20voting&description=>
Posted inalternative voting systems <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>
|Comments Off
Reactions to Shelby County: Linda Greenhouse
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52274>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 9:05 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52274>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
I'd been waiting for this. It begins
<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/current-conditions/?_r=0>:
"While any racial discrimination in voting is too much," Chief
Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told us in Tuesday's decision gutting
the Voting Rights Act, "Congress must ensure that the legislation it
passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions."
Well, here's a current condition: the ink was barely dry on the
Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf> when
Attorney General Greg Abbott of Texas announced that his state's
voter-ID law, blocked by a federal court
<http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Texas-v.-Holder-DCt-8-30-12.pdf> last
summer, "will take effect immediately."
Morehere
<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/current-conditions/?_r=0>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52274&title=Reactions%20to%20Shelby%20County%3A%20Linda%20Greenhouse&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
|Comments Off
Reactions to Shelby County: Donna Brazile
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52272>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 9:04 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52272>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Today, if President Barack Obama wants to save the Voting Rights Act
following Tuesday's shameful Supreme Court ruling, then he faces an
even bigger challenge than Johnson did: He's got to convince a much
more hostile Congress that the act is worth saving.
Morehere <http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/opinion/brazile-voting-rights-act/>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52272&title=Reactions%20to%20Shelby%20County%3A%20Donna%20Brazile&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
|Comments Off
Reactions to Shelby County: Artur Davis
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52270>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 9:04 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52270>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
HisPolitico op-ed
<http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/what-left-and-right-get-wrong-about-vra-93455.html?hp=r8>,
here:
With this week's historic decision, the U.S. Supreme Court did not
actually strike down Section 5 of the Voting Right Act (VRA), which
mandates advance federal approval, or pre-clearance, of changes to
election procedures in jurisdictions under the act's coverage. . . .
But the justices made Section 5 inoperable by invalidating the
formula in Section 4 that decides just what states and communities
qualify for such aggressive oversight. And by making the future of
preclearance depend on this thoroughly gridlocked Congress, the high
court's blow to Section 5 is fatal in practice --- even if not in
theory.
Morehere
<http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/what-left-and-right-get-wrong-about-vra-93455.html?hp=r8>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52270&title=Reactions%20to%20Shelby%20County%3A%20Artur%20Davis&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
|Comments Off
New Yorker on Shelby County <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52268>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 9:03 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52268>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
The New Yorker
<http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/06/voting-rights-act-end-to-racism-by-judicial-order.html>has
a somewhat different take:
Among the many things that can be gleaned from Tuesday's Supreme
Court decision eviscerating the Voting Rights Act
<http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/06/the-court-rejects-the-voting-rights-actand-history.html> is
this: we live in an era of American history which is, if not
actually post-racial, then officially post-racism. Race may still
exist as a social reality---and so may racism---but no amalgamation
of facts, studies, or disparities is sufficient to the cause of
proving that there exists a system which produces inequality. In
short: we have overcome whether the data agrees with us or not.
Morehere
<http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/06/voting-rights-act-end-to-racism-by-judicial-order.html>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52268&title=New%20Yorker%20on%20Shelby%20County&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
|Comments Off
National Review on Shelby County <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52266>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 9:02 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52266>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
It begins
<http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/352075/shelby-and-lefts-false-narrative-andrew-c-mccarthy>:
For anyone other than a "social justice" demagogue, the Supreme
Court's /Shelby /decision, striking down Section 4 of the Voting
Rights Act (VRA), is cause for celebration. In real life, this is a
success story: A society that overcomes ingrained, systematic racial
discrimination --- and does it during a 40-year span while, in parts
of the world the Left somehow prefers to America, discrimination
endures and becomes even more lethal. But the Left does not live in
a real nation; it lives in a false narrative: The United States is
the villain that can never be redeemed, and racism is not just its
original but its indelible sin.
Morehere
<http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/352075/shelby-and-lefts-false-narrative-andrew-c-mccarthy>.
Here's one sign you may be a demagogue: you call anyone who disagrees
with you a demagogue.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52266&title=National%20Review%20on%20Shelby%20County&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
|Comments Off
Morning Edition on Shelby County <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52263>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 7:49 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52263>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
A report
<http://www.npr.org/2013/06/26/195787490/supreme-court-frees-9-states-from-oversight-of-voting-law-changes> that
I'd somehow missed in all of the SCOTUS frenzy this morning.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52263&title=Morning%20Edition%20on%20Shelby%20County&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
|Comments Off
Reactions to Shelby County: Richard Epstein
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52261>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 7:48 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52261>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Richard Epsteinapplauds the decision
<http://ricochet.com/main-feed/node_740816>, taking on Rick Hasen'sNY
Times op-ed
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/opinion/the-chief-justices-long-game.html?_r=0>,
here:
In his /New York Times/ op-ed
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/opinion/the-chief-justices-long-game.html?_r=0>,
"The Chief Justice's Long Game," Richard L. Hasen
<http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html>, a noted
authority on voting rights, takes deep umbrage at yesterday's
Supreme Court decision in/Shelby County v. Holder
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf>/, which
he regards as an illicit part of a long-term agenda to dismantle
some of the major safeguards of the Civil Rights era. He is wrong, I
believe, in dealing both with the merits of the issue and the larger
social context of which it is a part.
The Roberts opinion struck down Section 4 of the 2006 Amendments to
the Voting Rights Act, but left Section 5 untouched. Section 5
allows the use of an exhaustive preclearance system in which
affected states have to submit any and all changes in voting
requirements, broadly construed, to the federal government for
approval. The overturned Section 4 sets out the states that are
subject to this onerous regime. In 1965, Section 4 included nine
states, mostly Southern. With the 2006 amendments, those 40-year old
classifications were fixed in place for another 25 years.
Morehere <http://ricochet.com/main-feed/node_740816>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52261&title=Reactions%20to%20Shelby%20County%3A%20Richard%20Epstein&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
|Comments Off
Reactions to Shelby County: Morgan Kousser
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52258>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 6:01 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52258>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
I'vetried to make the case
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/shadowboxing-and-unintended-consequences/>that
the very process of bailout established a continuing connection between
current conditions and the 2006 formula for section 4. Here, Morgan
Kousser presents one of the alternative continuing connections,
withdetailed data
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/06/26/gutting-the-landmark-civil-rights-legislation/>showing
the incidence of voting rights actions and the (formerly) covered
jurisdictions. And hepulls it all together
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/06/26/gutting-the-landmark-civil-rights-legislation/>as
only Morgan can:
The Supreme Court's Shelby County v. Holder decision on Tuesday
essentially cast aside the key component
<http://www.reuters.com/subjects/voting-rights> of the nation's most
important civil rights legislation
<http://projects.nytimes.com/live-dashboard/2013-06-25-supreme-court>.
The five "conservative" justices castigated Congress for putting too
much emphasis on history
<http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-missing-amendments.html> by
failing to update the "coverage formula" in Section 4 of the
landmark Voting Rights Act
<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81050.html> of 1965.
. . .
Congress did not update the formula because it knows it still works.
The comprehensive database that I assembled proves this
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/15/the-strong-case-for-keeping-section-5/>.
Consider, from 1957 through 2006, almost 94 percent of all voting
rights minority lawsuits, legal objections and out-of-court
settlements occurred in jurisdictions now subject to federal
oversight under the Section 4 formula.
Morehere
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/06/26/gutting-the-landmark-civil-rights-legislation/>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52258&title=Reactions%20to%20Shelby%20County%3A%20Morgan%20Kousser&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
|Comments Off
New voter ID suit in Texas <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52253>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 2:31 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52253>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Michael Li
<http://txredistricting.org/post/53952043837/suit-filed-by-congressman-veasey-others-to-bar-texas>brings
word of anew lawsuit
<https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxeOfQQnUr_gdWRsUm14amh0WDA/edit> filed
this morning against Texas's strict photo ID law, under the Constitution
and section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Fret not, BigLaw, there's
stillbusiness for your pro bono <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52247>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52253&title=New%20voter%20ID%20suit%20in%20Texas&description=>
Posted invoter id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> |Comments Off
Reactions to Shelby County: Nick Stephanopoulos
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52251>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 2:28 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52251>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Here, at HuffPo
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicholas-stephanopoulos/section-two-minus-section_b_3505622.html>,
discussing districts that were protected under section 5 but that may
not be protected under section 2:
In a dramatic decision yesterday, the Supreme Court essentially
obliterated one of the two pillars of the Voting Rights Act. The
provision at issue, section 5 of the Act, had required certain
jurisdictions, mostly in the South, to receive federal approval
before changing any of their election laws. According to the Court,
Congress overstepped its bounds when, in 2006, it renewed its
formula for determining which areas were subject to the preapproval
requirement. Congress's formula was obsolete, in the Court's view
--- "based on decades-old data and eradicated practices" --- and no
longer captured the places with the worst records of discrimination.
With the effective demise of section 5, the Act's other pillar,
section 2, assumes even greater importance. While section 5 banned
policies that reduced the electoral power of minorities, in covered
areas only, section 2 forbids practices that "dilute" minority
voting strength anywhere in the country. Unfortunately, section 2 is
a poor substitute for section 5. Both procedurally and
substantively, the protections it offers to minority voters are
weaker. With respect to redistricting in particular, according to my
research, about 150 districts safeguarded by section 5 now lack any
protection under section 2.
Morehere
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicholas-stephanopoulos/section-two-minus-section_b_3505622.html>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52251&title=Reactions%20to%20Shelby%20County%3A%20Nick%20Stephanopoulos&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
|Comments Off
"Voting Rights Ruling a Blow to Big Firms' Pro Bono Push"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52247>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 2:15 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52247>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
A fascinating angle on the impact of Shelby County ...to BigLaw
<http://www.americanlawyer.com/PubArticleALD.jsp?id=1202608412415&Voting_Rights_Ruling_a_Blow_to_Big_Firms_Pro_Bono_Push>.
There have been many Shelby County reaction pieces in the last two days.
This is not one I saw coming.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52247&title=%E2%80%9CVoting%20Rights%20Ruling%20a%20Blow%20to%20Big%20Firms%E2%80%99%20Pro%20Bono%20Push%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection law biz <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>,Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> |Comments Off
--
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130626/72b2caf6/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/20130626/72b2caf6/attachment.png>
View list directory