[EL] Sleeper Case of the Year
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Sun Mar 17 07:33:46 PDT 2013
Regarding Rick's interesting post Sleeper Case of the year:
(My emphasis.) A contrary ruling in the Arizona case would alter the
state-federal balance over federal elections and give states a greater ability
to manipulate election rules for partisan reason, something especially
dangerous in the era of the _Voting Wars_
(http://www.amazon.com/Voting-Wars-Florida-Election-Meltdown/dp/0300182031/ref=sr_1_cc_2?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=13292869
45&sr=1-2-catcorr) —not to mention preventing Congress from imposing
uniform voting standards in the U.S., such as the requirement that we elect all
members of Congress from single-member districts.
Rick's error here is that the partisan forces that control the federal
government are just as capable of adopting rules to manipulate elections as are
the partisan forces in states. However, federal manipulation is worse
since it effects all states and therefore the result of the entire national
election. If one state or a few state manipulate the rules to favor one
side and then on state or a few states manipulate the rules to favor the other,
it is a wash. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 3/16/2013 8:30:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
_Sleeper Case of the Year?_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48440)
Posted on _March 16, 2013 5:24 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48440)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
I’ll be anxiously awaiting the release of the transcript Monday in the
Supreme Court oral argument in _Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council_
(http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/12-71.html) . In brief, the
question is whether Arizona can refuse to accept a simple federal form for voter
registration (which Congress in the 1993 National Voter Registration Act
required states to accept), on grounds Congress has exceeded its
constitutional power under the _Elections Clause_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_4:_Congressional_elections)
to “make or alter” state rules for congressional voting.
I’ll be writing more about_ the case _
(http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/arizona-v-the-inter-tribal-council-of-arizona-inc/) after I read
the transcript, but at this point I can say the following: This is one of
those cases where if the Supreme Court affirms the result in this case (that
Arizona must accept the federal form), it will be no big deal, but if the
Court reverses it would mark a major change in U.S. election law. Many
earlier Supreme Court cases noted Congress’s broad power to set rules for
federal elections. For example, here’s the Court in the 1997 case, _Foster v.
Love:_ (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-670.ZO.html)
The Elections Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, §4, cl. 1, provides that
“[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and
Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;
but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.”
The Clause is a default provision; it invests the States with responsibility
for the mechanics of congressional elections, see Storer v. Brown, _415
U.S. 724_ (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?415+724) , 730
(1974), but only so far as Congress declines to pre-empt state legislative
choices, see Roudebush v. Hartke, _405 U.S. 15_
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?405+15) , 24 (1972) (“Unless Congress acts, Art. I, §4,
empowers the States to regulate”). Thus it is well settled that the
Elections Clause grants Congress “the power to override state regulations” by
establishing uniform rules for federal elections, binding on the States. U.S.
Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, _514 U.S. 779_
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?514+779) , 832—833 (1995). “[T]he regulations made by
Congress are paramount to those made by the State legislature; and if they
conflict therewith, the latter, so far as the conflict extends, ceases to
be operative.” Ex parte Siebold, _100 U.S. 371_
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?100+371) , 384 (1880).
(My emphasis.) A contrary ruling in the Arizona case would alter the
state-federal balance over federal elections and give states a greater ability
to manipulate election rules for partisan reason, something especially
dangerous in the era of the _Voting Wars_
(http://www.amazon.com/Voting-Wars-Florida-Election-Meltdown/dp/0300182031/ref=sr_1_cc_2?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=13292869
45&sr=1-2-catcorr) —not to mention preventing Congress from imposing
uniform voting standards in the U.S., such as the requirement that we elect all
members of Congress from single-member districts.
In case you are interested, here is the Question presented: “Did the court
of appeals err 1) in creating a new, heightened preemption test under
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution (“the Elections Clause”
) that is contrary to this Court’s authority and conflicts with other
circuit court decisions, and 2) in holding that under that test the National
Voter Registration Act preempts an Arizona law that requests persons who are
registering to vote to show evidence that they are eligible to vote?”
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48440&title=Sleeper%20Case%20of%20the%20Year?&description=)
Posted in _election administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18) ,
_Elections Clause_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70) , _Voting Rights
Act_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15) | Comments Off
_“Former Riverbank mayor contests bill for recount”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48437)
Posted on _March 15, 2013 8:22 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48437)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_The Modesto Bee reports._
(http://www.modbee.com/2013/03/14/2622408/former-riverbank-mayor-contests.html)
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48437&title=“Former%20Riverbank%20mayor%20contests%20bill%20for%20recount”
&description=)
Posted in _election administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18) ,
_recounts_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=50) | Comments Off
_“DFLers contol Minnesota Capitol but election overhaul ideas need GOP
support”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48434)
Posted on _March 15, 2013 8:08 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48434)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_The Star-Tribune reports._
(http://www.startribune.com/politics/198559731.html?src=news-stmp)
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48434&title=“
DFLers%20contol%20Minnesota%20Capitol%20but%20election%20overhaul%20ideas%20need%20GOP%20support”&description=)
Posted in _election administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18) ,
_The Voting Wars_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60) | Comments Off
_“Shame On Maryland’s State Board Of Elections”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48431)
Posted on _March 15, 2013 5:10 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48431)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Jim Snider blogs_
(http://www.eyeonannapolis.net/2013/03/15/shame-on-marylands-state-board-of-elections/) .
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48431&title=“Shame%20On%20Maryland’s%20State%20Board%20Of%20Elections”
&description=)
Posted in _election administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18)
| Comments Off
_Keynoting at Mar. 23 U. Va. Conference on The Voting Wars: Elections and
the Law from Registration to Inauguration_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48420)
Posted on _March 15, 2013 3:15 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48420)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
There’s a great lineup of speakers at two panels, and I’ll be giving a
presentation on my book, _The Voting Wars_
(http://www.amazon.com/Voting-Wars-Florida-Election-Meltdown/dp/0300182031/ref=sr_1_cc_2?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1329
286945&sr=1-2-catcorr) , updated to take _2012 development_
(http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2182857) s into account. Here’s the
flyer.
(http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/s13_voterwars_big-14.png)
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48420&title=Keynoting%20at%20Mar.%2023%20U.%20Va.%20Conference%20on%20The%20Votin
g%20Wars:%20Elections%20and%20the%20Law%20from%20Registration%20to%20Inaugur
ation&description=)
Posted in _election administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18) ,
_The Voting Wars_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60) | Comments Off
_Must-read Lyle Denniston Preview of Arizona Elections Case_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48416)
Posted on _March 15, 2013 7:50 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48416)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
I had been hoping to do my own write-up on this very important case, but
writing, teaching and grading commitments have overwhelmed me the last few
weeks.
You won’t do better than _this comprehensive and insightful analysis _
(http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/argument-preview-election-integrity-or-voter-
suppression/) of the issues in the Arizona case from Lyle Denniston at
SCOTUSBlog. This could be the sleeper case of the year.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48416&title=Must-read%20Lyle%20Denniston%20Preview%20of%20Arizona%20Elections%20C
ase&description=)
Posted in _Elections Clause_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70) ,
_Supreme Court_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29) | 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_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu)
_http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html_
(http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html)
_http://electionlawblog.org_ (http://electionlawblog.org/)
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130317/a406eedd/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130317/a406eedd/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130317/a406eedd/attachment-0001.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130317/a406eedd/attachment-0002.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130317/a406eedd/attachment-0003.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: s13_voterwars_big-14.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 315770 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130317/a406eedd/attachment-0004.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130317/a406eedd/attachment-0005.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130317/a406eedd/attachment-0006.bin>
View list directory