[EL] ELB News and Commentary 9/21/13
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Fri Sep 20 21:00:02 PDT 2013
"California Gives Expanded Rights to Noncitizens"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55416>
Posted on September 20, 2013 8:52 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55416>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/us/california-leads-in-expanding-noncitizens-rights.html?ref=politics&_r=0>
California is challenging the historic status of American
citizenship with measures to permit noncitizens to sit on juries and
monitor polls for elections in which they cannot vote and to open
the practice of law even to those here illegally. It is the leading
edge of a national trend that includes granting drivers' licenses
and in-state tuition to illegal immigrants in some states and that
suggests legal residency could evolve into an appealing option
should immigration legislation fail to produce a path to citizenship.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55416&title=%E2%80%9CCalifornia%20Gives%20Expanded%20Rights%20to%20Noncitizens%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in voting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
"Voting Rules and Constitutional Law"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55413>
Posted on September 20, 2013 8:46 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55413>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Can't wait to read this new piece
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2322765> by Ned
Foley (forthcoming /George Washington Law Review/). Here is the abstract:
Anyone concerned that Bush v. Gore may have been unprincipled or at
least insufficiently precise in its reasoning should have the same
concern about the leading voting law case emanating from the 2012
presidential election, Obama for America v. Husted. That case is
just as fact-specific in its holding as Bush v. Gore was. Moreover,
both cases are signs of a pervasive problem in contemporary election
law: the judicial evaluation of electoral rules under the prevailing
Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence is woefully indeterminate, as
also revealed in the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in Indiana's
voter identification case (Crawford v. Marion County Election
Board). When one attempts to put Crawford together with Bush v.
Gore, as the lower courts attempted to do in Obama for America v.
Husted and other voting related litigation in 2012, one is at a loss
as to the specificity of the standard to apply to the facts of the
pending case. This indeterminacy is especially problematic in
election cases because it tempts judges to decide these politically
fraught cases according to their own partisan preferences, rather
than according to objectively discernible principles.
An alternative approach would be to have federal judges focus
explicitly on the problem of partisanship. The new test of a voting
procedure's constitutionality under the Fourteenth Amendment would
be whether it was imposed as an effort to tilt the electoral playing
field in favor of a particular political party. One advantage of
this new test is that it would substitute a relatively
straightforward single inquiry --- did the relevant arm of state
government engage in improper partisan manipulation of the electoral
process? --- for the currently incommensurate balancing of electoral
burdens and administrative benefits. Another advantage of this new
test would be that, by making federal judges more consciously (and,
in their opinions, expressly) attuned to the risks of improper
partisanship, it would increase the likelihood that federal judges
would do a better job at policing their own temptations towards
partisan rulings in high-stakes election cases.
My own writing about the Ohio case, in the same symposium, is here
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2182857>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55413&title=%E2%80%9CVoting%20Rules%20and%20Constitutional%20Law%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,
The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
"New Guidance for 501(c)(4)s on Measuring Primary Activity in the
Works, Official Says" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55410>
Posted on September 20, 2013 8:41 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55410>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bloomberg BNA
<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=36647675&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0e1x7q7m8&split=0>:
The Internal Revenue Service is working on new guidance for Section
501(c)(4) tax-exempt groups relating to the measurement of an
organization's primary activity and whether the organization
operates primarily to promote social welfare, a Treasury Department
official said.
The guidance would include information relating to political
campaign intervention as well, Ruth Madrigal, attorney-adviser in
the department's office of tax policy, said. She referenced a May 14
report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration on
the treatment of Tea Party and other political groups, showing that
the IRS has used inappropriate criteria when identifying groups for
review of their applications for tax exemption.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55410&title=%E2%80%9CNew%20Guidance%20for%20501%28c%29%284%29s%20on%20Measuring%20Primary%20Activity%20in%20the%20Works%2C%20Official%20Says%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law
and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
"Flood of Statements in Closed FEC Cases Comes as McGahn Departs
Commission" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55408>
Posted on September 20, 2013 8:31 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55408>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bloomberg BNA
<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=36647674&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0e1x7p3p4&split=0>:
Federal Election Commission Vice Chairman Donald McGahn and fellow
FEC Republicans have released a series of statements about past FEC
enforcement cases, some years-old and going back to their earliest
days on the commission.
The move comes as McGahn prepares to leave the commission and return
to private law practice. The statements may help establish a legacy
for him by making it harder to enforce campaign finance rules in
ways that the outspoken commissioner disagreed with.
MORE:
In a footnote to one of the new statements, McGahn accused FEC
Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub of "manipulation" of the FEC agenda to
delay votes on some still-pending enforcement cases until the new
commissioners arrive. The statement was filed in a case---designated
Matter Under Review (MUR) 6543---regarding automated phone calls,
known as robocalls, that criticized Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.).
Weintraub had faulted McGahn and other FEC Republicans for delaying
public release of the McHenry case. McGahn's statement said the case
was delayed because he asked FEC staffers to research whether the
FEC rules defining messages of "express advocacy" for or against a
candidate were enforceable.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55408&title=%E2%80%9CFlood%20of%20Statements%20in%20Closed%20FEC%20Cases%20Comes%20as%20McGahn%20Departs%20Commission%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, federal
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>
"Legal Center Moves to Protect Ohioans' Initiative and Referendum
Rights from Legislative Suppression"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55406>
Posted on September 20, 2013 8:27 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55406>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Press release
<http://www.ohioconstitution.org/2013/09/18/legal-center-move-to-protect-ohioans-initiative-and-referendum-rights-from-legislative-suppression/>:
"The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law today moved in federal court to
immediately enjoin the state from enforcing Senate Bill 47?s new limits
on Ohioans' initiative and referendum rights. The legislation, which
became effective in June, restricts Ohioans from working with anyone
other than an Ohio resident when gathering signatures to place a ballot
issue before voters, and prohibits certain Ohioans from gathering
signatures during critical periods."
/Read Citizens in Charge's Complaint HERE
<http://www.ohioconstitution.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Citizens-in-Charge-Verified-Complaint.pdf>./
/Read Citizens in Charge's Motion for Preliminary Injunction HERE
<http://www.ohioconstitution.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Citizens-in-Charge-MPI.pdf>./
/Read 1851?s recent Testimony to the Ohio Constitutional
Modernization Commission, defending Ohioans Initiative and
Referendum rights, HERE
<http://www.ohioconstitution.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Constitutional-Modernization-IR.pdf>.
/
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55406&title=%E2%80%9CLegal%20Center%20Moves%20to%20Protect%20Ohioans%E2%80%99%20Initiative%20and%20Referendum%20Rights%20from%20Legislative%20Suppression%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in ballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>, direct
democracy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>, petition signature
gathering <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=39>
More on McCutcheon <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55404>
Posted on September 20, 2013 8:23 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55404>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bauer
<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2013/09/evaluating-the-stakes-in-mccutcheon/>
Wertheimer
<http://www.democracy21.org/inside-the-courts/press-releases-inside-the-courts/q-and-a-on-mccutcheon-supreme-court-case/>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55404&title=More%20on%20McCutcheon&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
Voting Rights this Afternoon at CBC Legislative Conference
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55401>
Posted on September 20, 2013 8:10 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55401>by Spencer Overton
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=17>
Friday, Sept. 20, 2013
1:00 pm-3:00 pm: *Protecting the Right to Vote*
Chairman John Conyers Judiciary Braintrust
Advancing the Civil Rights Agenda
Washington Convention Center: Room 143-A
Moderator: Prof. Spencer Overton, George Washington University Law School
Barbara R. Arnwine, Executive Director, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
Nicole M. Austin-Hillery, Director and Counsel- Washington Office,
Brennan Center for Justice
Wade Henderson, President & CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil
and Human Rights
Dr. Tyson D. King-Meadows, Ph.D., University of Maryland Baltimore County
Greg Moore, Executive Director, NAACP National Voter Fund
Prof. Charles Ogletree, Harvard Law School
Becky Pringle, Secretary/Treasurer, National Education Association
Deborah J. Vagins, Senior Legislative Counsel, ACLU Washington
Legislative Office
3:00 pm-5:00 pm: *Honorable A. Leon Higginbotham Memorial Voting Rights
Braintrust*
Organized by Congressman Mel Watt
Washington Convention Center Room 143-BKeynote
Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States
Remarks
Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI)
Representative Robert "Bobby" Scott (VA)
Moderator & Panelists
Moderator: Congressman Mel Watt (NC)
Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund
Anita Earls, Founder and Executive Director, Southern Coalition for
Social Justice
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55401&title=Voting%20Rights%20this%20Afternoon%20at%20CBC%20Legislative%20Conference&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
--
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://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130920/82e6d0c7/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/20130920/82e6d0c7/attachment.png>
View list directory