[EL] ELB News and Commentary 3/20/13

Tue Mar 19 21:47:05 PDT 2013

In Fairvote’<http://www.fairvote.org/new-york-times-perpetuates-myth-that-current-electoral-college-rules-help-small-states#.UUk7_Wdy2iI>s
response to Adam Liptak’s NYT analysis of the Electoral
College<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/11/us/politics/democracy-tested.html>(and,
particularly, how it helps small states), Fairvote makes the
following comment:

With winner-take-all, if one candidate is comfortably ahead in a state -
or, as is the case with some 40 states today, one party is sure to win the
state in the next close election, no matter who the candidates are - then
that state's voters are good for only two things to presidential
candidates: donating money and helping to influence voters in the handful
of states that matter. Unless a small state is a swing state, presidential
candidates will ignore it, just as they ignore the vast majority of other
states of all sizes.

I appreciate that this makes sense to a point. But it speaks more to the
nature of campaigns than it does to the Electoral College.  The same
reasoning applies to big states too.  The GOP needn’t waste too much money
in New York State and the Dems don’t need to worry about losing it—unless,
of course, as part of a coordinated national campaign, visits by
presidential candidates can shore up the fortunes of their fellow partisans
running for lower office.

I am ambivalent about the Electoral College.  Its design and impact is part
of an electoral and constitutional system that is a hybrid democracy.  Critics
flog the myth that anything short of pure majority rule is undemocratic.  But,
the constitutional system is a hybrid designed to buffer and diffuse
majority rule.

In the end, then, I wonder whether the voting age population of the
Dakotas, Wyoming or Rhode Island (as a percentage of the total presidential
electorate) would be any more appealing a target to candidates than their 3
Electoral College Votes (as part of the 270 necessary to win) would be.

There is no doubt that if we were to change the presidential election
rules, it would create new incentives for candidates which would cause them
to change their behavior. I am not convinced that this would render small
states any more potent in the electoral process.

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>   “Republican Super PAC War Splits the Party”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48558>
> Posted on March 19, 2013 9:07 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48558> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Roll Call<http://www.rollcall.com/news/republican_super_pac_war_splits_the_party-223293-1.html>:
> “A cottage industry of new Republican super PACs run by a diverse array of
> tea party activists, conservative organizers and established operatives is
> making the GOP look less like a political party than a collection of
> competing outside groups.”
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48558&title=%E2%80%9CRepublican%20Super%20PAC%20War%20Splits%20the%20Party%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, political
> parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, political polarization<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>
> | Comments Off
>   Democrats Push Back Against IG Report on DOJ Voting Secton<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48554>
> Posted on March 19, 2013 8:44 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48554> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Huffington Post:<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/voting-section-report-politicization_n_2867329.html>“Former Justice Department officials are pushing back on a report released
> last week that they say falsely equates the Bush administration’s
> politicization of the department’s Voting Section with the Obama
> administration’s efforts to get the demoralized division back on track.”
>
> People have tried to spin me with the “false equivalence” argument too but
> I don’t buy it.  The department is a mess, and it is way too ideologically
> polarized for a government agency.
>
> I made these points in my recent *Slate* piece.
> <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/03/justice_department_s_inspector_general_report_is_the_voting_rights_section.html>It
> is interesting to me that this piece has gotten many fewer links and likes
> than my *Slate *pieces usually get. I attribute it to the fact that it
> has a message which does not appeal to liberals—that there’s still a
> problem of polarization and unprofessionalism in the department—and one
> which does not appeal to conservatives—that most of the problems they’ve
> flagged with the Obama DOJ in terms of biased enforcement and hiring
> decisions were rejected by the IG.
>
> As the IG concluded: “Other Department components—including components
> that specialize in subject areas that are also politically controversial,
> such as environmental protection—do not appear to suffer from the same
> degree of polarization and internecine conflict. We believe the difference
> is largely a function of leadership and culture, and that steps must be
> taken to address the professional culture of the Voting Section and the
> perception that political or ideological considerations have affected
> important administrative and enforcement decisions there.”
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48554&title=Democrats%20Push%20Back%20Against%20IG%20Report%20on%20DOJ%20Voting%20Secton&description=>
>   Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments
> Off
>   “House Ethics Panel Finds Cause to Investigate 2 Lawmakers”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48551>
> Posted on March 19, 2013 8:28 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48551> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NYT<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/us/politics/house-panel-finds-initial-evidence-of-ethics-abuses-by-2-lawmakers.html?ref=politics>:
> “The House Ethics Committee has found credible evidence that two lawmakers
> — a Republican from Alaska and a Democrat from New Jersey — improperly used
> campaign money for personal expenses, among other abuses.”
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48551&title=%E2%80%9CHouse%20Ethics%20Panel%20Finds%20Cause%20to%20Investigate%202%20Lawmakers%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, conflict
> of interest laws <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>, ethics
> investigations <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=42> | Comments Off
>   “Libertarian Party Wins Procedural Victory in Campaign Finance Case
> Involving a Bequest” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48548>
> Posted on March 19, 2013 8:24 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48548> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> BAN<http://www.ballot-access.org/2013/03/19/libertarian-party-wins-procedural-victory-in-campaign-finance-case-involving-a-bequest/>:
> “On March 19, U.S. District Court Judge Robert L. Wilkins ruled that the
> Libertarian Party’s campaign finance case involving a bequest to the party
> can be certified to the entire panel of U.S. Court of Appeals Judges in the
> D.C. Circuit. The decision<http://www.campaignfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/LNCopinion.pdf>is 28 pages, followed by 20 pages of Findings of Fact.”
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48548&title=%E2%80%9CLibertarian%20Party%20Wins%20Procedural%20Victory%20in%20Campaign%20Finance%20Case%20Involving%20a%20Bequest%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
>   “Can Arizona Demand Voters’ Proof of Citizenship?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48544>
> Posted on March 19, 2013 8:22 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48544> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> This audio segment
> <http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=174738252&m=174738245>appeared
> on NPR’s “Tell Me More.”
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48544&title=%E2%80%9CCan%20Arizona%20Demand%20Voters%E2%80%99%20Proof%20of%20Citizenship%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in Elections Clause <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
>   “Kentucky law ambiguous on residency requirements”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48540>
> Posted on March 19, 2013 8:13 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48540> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> AP<http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Kentucky-law-ambiguous-on-residency-requirements-4367559.php>:
> “Talk of Tennessee resident Ashley Judd<http://www.sfgate.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Ashley+Judd%22>running for U.S.
> Senate<http://www.sfgate.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22U.S.+Senate%22>in Kentucky has turned up ambiguity in state residency requirements that a
> legislative leader says need to be cleared up.”
>
> Maybe I’m missing something but it seems to me that any state law which
> would keep a candidate for U.S. Senate off the ballot for not being a
> current resident would be an unconstitutional qualification for office
> which would be struck down in the event of a suit challenging the
> requirement.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48540&title=%E2%80%9CKentucky%20law%20ambiguous%20on%20residency%20requirements%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments
> Off
>   Fairvote Takes on Adam Liptak on Small States and the Electoral College<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48537>
> Posted on March 19, 2013 8:05 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48537> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> See here.<http://www.fairvote.org/new-york-times-perpetuates-myth-that-current-electoral-college-rules-help-small-states>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48537&title=Fairvote%20Takes%20on%20Adam%20Liptak%20on%20Small%20States%20and%20the%20Electoral%20College&description=>
>   Posted in electoral college <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=44> | Comments
> Off
>   “RNC Growth And Opportunity Project Report Advises Super PACs”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48534>
> Posted on March 19, 2013 8:08 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48534> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Paul Blumenthal<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/rnc-growth-and-opportunity-project_n_2904756.html?1363704633>
> :
>
> Spend less on negative advertising and spend more on ground game. Target
> young voters, especially young women. Build a national database that
> includes e-mail and cell phone numbers. And, above all else, learn to work
> together.
>
> These were all suggestions in the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) 100-page
> Growth and Opportunity Project report<http://growthopp.gop.com/RNC_Growth_Opportunity_Book_2013.pdf>released on Monday, detailing what went wrong in the 2012 election and how
> to set the party in the right direction for future elections. Except these
> were not recommendations for the RNC, but recommendations by the RNC for
> the network of independent political groups that have exploded in size and
> number since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling opened the
> door for unlimited independent spending.
>
> The litany of suggestions are notable in this very public report because
> election law forbids the GOP from certain crucial types of private
> coordination with these groups. By publicly airing its recommendations, the
> RNC can legally pass on suggestions to groups from Karl Rove’s Crossroads
> to the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity and even the insurgent Club
> for Growth — suggestions that include spending and tactical advice that
> would otherwise be against the law if shared privately.
>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48534&title=%E2%80%9CRNC%20Growth%20And%20Opportunity%20Project%20Report%20Advises%20Super%20PACs%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 - 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
>

-- 
Mark Rush
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130320/5dde8892/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/20130320/5dde8892/attachment.png>