[EL] Sleeper Case of the Year
Rob Richie
rr at fairvote.org
Sun Mar 17 08:57:50 PDT 2013
For some of us, this discussion underscores the value of providing
affirmative constitutional guarantees of the right to vote, given the kind
of strict scrutiny protection provided to freedoms in the Bill of Rights.
Frankly, I'm not keen on either the federal government or state governments
having unchecked power to manipulate voting rules.
So stay tuned for new legislation establishing an affirmative right to vote
in the Constitution, as done in most states and most other nation's
constitutions.
Rick's example of the federal mandate on states to draw single member
districts is an interesting one for showing how federal mandates can
backfire. Single-member districts today result in a severe partisan bias
due to where Republican-leaning and Democratic-leaning voters lives -- one
that's grounded in districting more than redistricting. The best guess is
that for Democrats to win even half the House seats in 2014, they will need
a national advantage in two-party preference of more than 55% to 45% -
-something we haven't seen in House elections in a very long time.
As structured, the single member district mandate creates a perfect storm
for partisans. The federal government mandates districting every 10 years,
but sets few limits on how those district lines can be drawn, thereby
giving a blank check to state partisans to try to increase their
advantages. Single member district mandates also virtually guarantee that
most of us will live in districts with partisan tilts large enough ttat
there is no hope of party change or even a competitive race for a decade.
We've crafted legislation for an independent redistricting commission to be
tasked with drawing super districts designed for fair voting elections
along the lines of the of the examples we have created for every state at
FairVoting.US. We will watch this case with interest!
Rob Richie
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:33 AM, <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
> **
> 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=1329286945&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), b*ut 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=1329286945&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?”
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48440&title=Sleeper
> Case of the Year?&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48440&title=Sleeper%20Case%20of%20the%20Year%3F&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>
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48437&title=“Former
> Riverbank mayor contests bill for recount†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48437&title=%E2%80%9CFormer%20Riverbank%20mayor%20contests%20bill%20for%20recount%E2%80%9D&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>
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48434&title=“DFLers
> contol Minnesota Capitol but election overhaul ideas need GOP supportâ€
> &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48434&title=%E2%80%9CDFLers%20contol%20Minnesota%20Capitol%20but%20election%20overhaul%20ideas%20need%20GOP%20support%E2%80%9D&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/>
> .
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48431&title=“Shame
> On Maryland’s State Board Of Elections†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48431&title=%E2%80%9CShame%20On%20Maryland%E2%80%99s%20State%20Board%20Of%20Elections%E2%80%9D&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=1329286945&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.
>
> [image:
> http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/s13_voterwars_big-14.png]<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/s13_voterwars_big-14.png>
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48420&title=Keynoting
> at Mar. 23 U. Va. Conference on The Voting Wars: Elections and the Law from
> Registration to Inauguration&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48420&title=Keynoting%20at%20Mar.%2023%20U.%20Va.%20Conference%20on%20The%20Voting%20Wars%3A%20Elections%20and%20the%20Law%20from%20Registration%20to%20Inauguration&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.
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48416&title=Must-read
> Lyle Denniston Preview of Arizona Elections Case&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48416&title=Must-read%20Lyle%20Denniston%20Preview%20of%20Arizona%20Elections%20Case&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 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.htmlhttp://electionlawblog.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
Rob Richie
Executive Director
FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
Takoma Park, MD 20912
www.fairvote.org <http://www.fairvote.org> rr at fairvote.org
(301) 270-4616
Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see
http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider a gift
to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's CFC number is
10132.) Thank you!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130317/7bf71e83/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/20130317/7bf71e83/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/20130317/7bf71e83/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/20130317/7bf71e83/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/20130317/7bf71e83/attachment-0003.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/20130317/7bf71e83/attachment-0004.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/20130317/7bf71e83/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/20130317/7bf71e83/attachment-0006.bin>
View list directory