[EL] ELB News and Commentary 2/22/14
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Mon Apr 21 19:59:14 PDT 2014
Justice Stevens' Seventh Amendment?
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60712>
Posted on April 21, 2014 5:51 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60712>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
He tells USA Today's Richard Wolf:
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/21/justice-stevens-supreme-court-constitution-book/7872695/>
"It's certainly not easy to get the Constitution amended, and
perhaps that's one flaw in the Constitution that I don't mention in
the book," he said during a wide-ranging interview with USA TODAY in
his chambers at the court. Noting his book's half dozen proposed
amendments, he mused, "Maybe I should have had seven."
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60712&title=Justice%20Stevens%E2%80%99%20Seventh%20Amendment%3F&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
"Sacramento Press Club Excludes Green Party's CA Sec. of State
Candidate From Upcoming Debate" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60710>
Posted on April 21, 2014 5:39 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60710>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Brad Blog: <http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10590>
The candidates polling first, second...fourth and fifth in the 2014
election for CA Secretary of State, according to a recent Field Poll
<http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2465.pdf>, will
appear at a debate being held by the non-profit Sacramento Press
Club (SPC)
<http://sacpressclub.org/special-events/20-events/309-april-2014-sos-debate?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page=>
this coming Wednesday.
The candidate polling in third place in that survey, however, Green
Party candidate David Curtis <http://www.votedavidcurtis.org>, is
not invited to participate and he's none too happy about it.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60710&title=%E2%80%9CSacramento%20Press%20Club%20Excludes%20Green%20Party%E2%80%99s%20CA%20Sec.%20of%20State%20Candidate%20From%20Upcoming%20Debate%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, third parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=47>
No, the Supreme Court Probably Won't Address the Right to Lie in
Campaigns Tomorrow <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60708>
Posted on April 21, 2014 5:34 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60708>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
On Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court hears the /Susan B. Anthony /case
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/susan-b-anthony-list-v-driehaus/?wpmp_switcher=desktop>.
Here's what I wrote <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57900>when the
Supreme Court agreed to take the case:
I've now had a chance to read the petition
<http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/SBADriehaus13TermCERT.pdf>,
opposition
<http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/FINAL-Brief-in-Opp-SBA_COAST-for-printing-11-27-2013.pdf>,
andreply
<http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/SBA-Cert-Reply.pdf>
in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/susan-b-anthony-list-v-driehaus/>.
I believe this case is about ripeness, not the merits of Ohio's
false speech law.
I expect the Court to reverse the Sixth Circuit, perhaps
unanimously, and I think that's the right result. Getting a probable
cause determination against someone at the Ohio Elections Commission
is a real injury which has serious political consequences.
I expect that the Supreme Court will not reach the merits of the
constitutionality of Ohio's false speech law, either on its face or
as applied to the Susan B. Anthony group. That would be left to the
lower courts with a possible return trip to the Supreme Court in the
future.
My earlier post on the case is here
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57863>, and my substantive take on
false campaign speech laws after /US v. Alvarez/ inA Constitutional
Right to Lie in Campaigns and Elections?
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2151618>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60708&title=No%2C%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20Probably%20Won%E2%80%99t%20Address%20the%20Right%20to%20Lie%20in%20Campaigns%20Tomorrow&description=>
Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Torres-Spelliscy on Cert. Denial in Iowa Corporate Contributions
Case <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60706>
Posted on April 21, 2014 5:15 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60706>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here <http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/bullet-democracy-dodged>.
I reflected on that cert. denial and the different treatment of another
campaign finance case here <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60392>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60706&title=Torres-Spelliscy%20on%20Cert.%20Denial%20in%20Iowa%20Corporate%20Contributions%20Case&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
"Kobach: Most double registrations unintentional"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60704>
Posted on April 21, 2014 5:01 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60704>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP reports.
<http://kansasfirstnews.com/2014/04/21/kobach-most-double-registrations-unintentional/>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60704&title=%E2%80%9CKobach%3A%20Most%20double%20registrations%20unintentional%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,
voter registration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>
"How Much Speech Did You Take in Last Month?"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60702>
Posted on April 21, 2014 3:12 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60702>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Great /New Yorker /cartoon.
<http://www.condenaststore.com/-sp/How-much-speech-did-you-take-in-last-month-New-Yorker-Cartoon-Prints_i10662112_.htm>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60702&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20Much%20Speech%20Did%20You%20Take%20in%20Last%20Month%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
"Quietly, American Crossroads raises money from LLCs"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60700>
Posted on April 21, 2014 3:04 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60700>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Sunlight Foundation report.
<http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/04/21/quietly-american-crossroads-raises-money-from-llcs/>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60700&title=%E2%80%9CQuietly%2C%20American%20Crossroads%20raises%20money%20from%20LLCs%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
"Democrats Funnel Money Into State Races as Voter-ID Plays"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60698>
Posted on April 21, 2014 3:02 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60698>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bloomberg News article
<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-21/democrats-funnel-money-into-state-races-as-voter-id-plays.html?alcmpid=>
focusing on battle for Ohio Secretary of State.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60698&title=%E2%80%9CDemocrats%20Funnel%20Money%20Into%20State%20Races%20as%20Voter-ID%20Plays%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,
The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
New Ed Blum Voting Rights Lawsuit in Texas
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60696>
Posted on April 21, 2014 10:05 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60696>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Press release via email:
Voting Rights Lawsuit Filed Against State of Texas:
State Senate Districts Unconstitutional
(Alexandria, VA) Today, the Project on Fair Representation (POFR)
announces the filing of a federal lawsuit challenging the
constitutionality of Texas' state senate districts. The complaint
can be found at www.projectonfairrepresentation.org
<http://www.projectonfairrepresentation.org/>
The plaintiffs in this case are registered voters in Texas Senate
Districts #1 and #4 who assert that Plan S172---the Texas Senate
redistricting plan enacted by the Legislature and signed into law by
Governor Rick Perry on June 26, 2013--- is unconstitutional under
the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The
plaintiffs seek an order enjoining Texas from conducting further
state Senate elections under Plan S172 and ask the court to require
the Texas Legislature to reapportion state senatorial voting
districts in conformity with the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Defendants are Rick Perry, in his official capacity as Governor
of Texas, and Nandita Berry, in her official capacity as Texas
Secretary of State.
The lawsuit alleges that Texas's senate districts are grossly
malapportioned by various measures of eligible voters, thus
violating the principle of "one person, one vote" even though all of
the districts are roughly equal in total population. The plaintiffs
reside in two of the most malapportioned districts in the state.
The complaint notes that by some measures the gap between eligible
voters in the two Senate Districts and those in other districts
approaches 50%. The effect of this severe overpopulation of voters
in Senate Districts #1 and #4 is that the Plaintiffs' votes carry
far less weight than the votes of other citizens in districts that
are under-populated with electors.
For example, the votes of electors in Senate District 3, a district
over-populated with electors, have only sixty-one percent (61%) of
the weight of the votes of electors in Senate District 27, a
district under-populated with electors. The gross disparities
created by Plan S172 violate the fundamental requirement of voter
equality under the 14th Amendment.
As the Supreme Court of the United States held in /Reynolds v.
Sims/, the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits "weighting the votes of
citizens differently, by any method or means, merely because of
where they happen to reside." By adopting Plan S172, the State of
Texas has run afoul of what the Supreme Court in /Reynolds/ refers
to as "the basic principle of representative government,"
specifically, that "the weight of a citizen's vote cannot be made to
depend upon where he lives." Texas has done so despite the fact
that equalization of voter populations can be achieved compatibly
with equalization of total population in properly apportioned
senatorial districts.
Bert W. Rein, William S. Consovoy and Brendan J. Morrissey of Wiley
Rein, LLP in Washington, D.C. are counsel for the Plaintiffs. They
successfully represented Shelby Co. Alabama in /Shelby Co. Ala v.
Holder /and Abigail Fisher in /Fisher v. Univ. of Texas/ last term
at the U.S. Supreme Court. Also representing the Plaintiffs is
Meredith B. Parenti of Parenti Law PLLC in Houston, Texas.
Edward Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation, said,
"One-person, one-vote is the cornerstone of our nation's most
enduring election principles. That is why we are asking the court to
compel the state to remedy the glaring eligible voter gaps."
Blum added, "Equalizing eligible voters does not have to come at the
expense of equalizing for total population. Both can and should be
achieved."
POFR is a legal defense foundation based in Alexandria, Virginia
that has provide /pro bono /legal representation to individuals and
jurisdictions in a number of important U.S. Supreme Court cases,
including in /NW Austin MUD v. Holder/, /Shelby Co. Ala. v. Holder/
and /Abigail Fisher v. Univ. of Texas-Austin/.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60696&title=New%20Ed%20Blum%20Voting%20Rights%20Lawsuit%20in%20Texas&description=>
Posted in voting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>, Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
Marcia Coyle on Souter's Draft Dissent in Citizens United
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60694>
Posted on April 21, 2014 9:59 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60694>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Earlier today <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60681> I linked to Adam
Liptak's interview with Justice Stevens about campaign finance and his
proposed amendment.
A reader reminded me that Marcia Coyle's excellent 2013 book, /The
Roberts Court: the Struggle for the Constitution
<http://www.amazon.com/The-Roberts-Court-Struggle-Constitution/dp/1451627513/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398099430&sr=8-1&keywords=coyle+the+roberts+court>/,
provides an inside-the-Court look at the Souter dissent, including
quotes from the Justices. The discussion is at pages 251-52 of the book.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60694&title=Marcia%20Coyle%20on%20Souter%E2%80%99s%20Draft%20Dissent%20in%20Citizens%20United&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
"State Aggregate Limits and Proportional Bans under McCutcheon"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60692>
Posted on April 21, 2014 9:46 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60692>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
New report
<http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2014/04/21/state-aggregate-limits-and-proportional-bans-under-mccutcheon/>from
CCP. "Policymakers in the District of Columbia and the 18 states with
aggregate limits and proportional bans should strongly consider
repealing these speech-stifling regulations in order to comply with the
precedent set in the /McCutcheon /decision and avoid a likely successful
legal challenge. Additionally, repealing these regulations will also
enhance the First Amendment freedoms of the citizens residing in each of
these states."
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60692&title=%E2%80%9CState%20Aggregate%20Limits%20and%20Proportional%20Bans%20under%20McCutcheon%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
"The Roberts Court on Free Speech, & Snapshots of 2013-2014 Term"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60690>
Posted on April 21, 2014 9:08 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60690>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ron Collins blogs
<http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2014/04/fan-11-3-first-amendment-news-the-roberts-court-on-free-speech-snapshots-of-2013-2014-term.html>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60690&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Roberts%20Court%20on%20Free%20Speech%2C%20%26%20Snapshots%20of%202013-2014%20Term%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Quote of the Day <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60687>
Posted on April 21, 2014 8:35 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60687>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
"Judicial Watch sent the University of California at Irvine a
freedom of information request demanding Hasen's emails to the White
House and other government officials including any on the topic of
speech regulations. The University told Judicial Watch to pound
sand, and still hasn't provided anything."
What will judicial watch think if a liberal group asks universities
to hunt down all the political emails of its conservative
professors? I'm one of those, so I feel threatened myself. And since
when have the emails of a single employee with no authority to act
for [the] university on a subject been subject to FOIA requests?
Indiana University Professor Eric Rasmusssen
<http://kelley.iu.edu/facultyglobal/directory/FacultyProfile.cfm?netID=erasmuse>,
commenting at PJ Media.
<http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2014/04/17/a-new-more-sinister-irs-scandal/?advD=1248,208548&show-at-comment=622537#comment-622537>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60687&title=Quote%20of%20the%20Day&description=>
Posted in academic freedom <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=92>
--
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/20140421/53a90cea/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/20140421/53a90cea/attachment.png>
View list directory