[EL] ELB News and Commentary 12/16/14
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Mon Dec 15 20:36:18 PST 2014
"'In Push Out' Provision, Example of How Congress Does Its Job"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69185>
Posted onDecember 15, 2014 8:31 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69185>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT
<http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/in-push-out-provision-example-of-how-congress-does-its-job/?src=busln&_r=0>:
How Representative Kevin Yoder's "push out" provision survived is
not, as many have suggested, a tale of dark favors done in back
rooms at the last minute. Instead, it is how powerful lobbies work
their will, slowly, persistently, bit by bit --- in other words, how
Washington works.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69185&title=%E2%80%9C%E2%80%98In%20Push%20Out%E2%80%99%20Provision%2C%20Example%20of%20How%20Congress%20Does%20Its%20Job%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inlegislation and legislatures <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>
"CRS Report Details Perks for Outgoing Members of Congress"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69183>
Posted onDecember 15, 2014 8:20 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69183>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Roll Call
<http://blogs.rollcall.com/hill-blotter/crs-report-details-perks-for-outgoing-members-of-congress/?dcz=>:
Even though lawmakers who will not be returning to Congress in
January might feel downtrodden, they can find solace in the fact
that they retain some congressional perks.
Those perks, ranging from floor access to permanent identification
cards, were outlined in the Congressional Research Service's Dec. 5
report titled "Selected Privileges and Courtesies Extended to Former
Members of Congress." CRS American National Government specialist R.
Eric Peterson wrote in the report, "Some [privileges] are derived
from law and chamber rules, but others are courtesies that have been
extended as a matter of custom."
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69183&title=%E2%80%9CCRS%20Report%20Details%20Perks%20for%20Outgoing%20Members%20of%20Congress%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inlegislation and legislatures <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>
"After McDonnell conviction, Virginia needs to get tougher on
ethics" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69181>
Posted onDecember 15, 2014 8:08 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69181>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo editorial.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/after-mcdonnell-conviction-virginia-needs-to-get-tougher-on-ethics/2014/12/15/3245c0fe-8247-11e4-9f38-95a187e4c1f7_story.html>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69181&title=%E2%80%9CAfter%20McDonnell%20conviction%2C%20Virginia%20needs%20to%20get%20tougher%20on%20ethics%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,conflict
of interest laws <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>,ethics
investigations <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=42>
"Why Even a Good Midterm Turnout for Democrats in North Carolina
Fell Short" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69179>
Posted onDecember 15, 2014 7:15 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69179>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Nate Cohn analyzes
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/upshot/why-even-a-good-midterm-turnout-for-democrats-in-north-carolina-fell-short.html?ref=politics&_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1>for
NYT's The Upshot.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69179&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20Even%20a%20Good%20Midterm%20Turnout%20for%20Democrats%20in%20North%20Carolina%20Fell%20Short%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,voter registration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>
Pa. Supreme Court Sides with Cozen O'Connor in Campaign Finance
Dispute <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69176>
Posted onDecember 15, 2014 7:08 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69176>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Unanimous opinion
<http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-40-2014mo%20-%201020442502915448.pdf>(with
some recusals):
The primary issue in this appeal is whether a law firm's
post-election forgiveness of a political campaign committee's unpaid
legal fees, which were incurred due to the
firm's representation of a candidate in a ballot challenge, is
subject to the contribution limitations established in the
Philadelphia Campaign Finance Law, Philadelphia Code Chapter
20-1000, et seq. ("Code"), as applicable in 2007. The Commonwealth
Court held that the post-election forgiveness of debt would
constitute a "contribution" to the candidate's political campaign
under Section 1001(6) of the Code, and, thus, was subject to the
$10,000 per year contribution limitation set forth in Section
1001(2). For the reasons set forth herein, we hold that the law
firm's forgiveness of debt would not constitute a contribution to
the candidate's political campaign as the debt at issue was
[J-40-2014] -- 2 not incurred "for use in . . . influencing the
election of the candidate." Id. § 1001(6). Accordingly, we reverse
the order of the Commonwealth Court.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69176&title=Pa.%20Supreme%20Court%20Sides%20with%20Cozen%20O%E2%80%99Connor%20in%20Campaign%20Finance%20Dispute&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
"The Tea Party Is Wrong About The Cromnibus Campaign Finance Rider"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69174>
Posted onDecember 15, 2014 4:38 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69174>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Paul Jossey oped
<http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/15/the-tea-party-is-wrong-about-the-cromnibus-campaign-finance-rider/>in
the /Daily Caller./
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69174&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Tea%20Party%20Is%20Wrong%20About%20The%20Cromnibus%20Campaign%20Finance%20Rider%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
Brad Blog v. Bloomberg View on Voter ID Laws' Effects on Turnout
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69172>
Posted onDecember 15, 2014 3:43 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69172>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here <http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10985>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69172&title=Brad%20Blog%20v.%20Bloomberg%20View%20on%20Voter%20ID%20Laws%E2%80%99%20Effects%20on%20Turnout&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
"McAuliffe proposes $28 million to replace voting machines around
the state" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69170>
Posted onDecember 15, 2014 3:38 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69170>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
News from VA
<http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/mcauliffe-proposes-million-to-replace-voting-machines-around-the-state/article_b4135509-b4be-510a-bce5-b4198a6d3bfa.html>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69170&title=%E2%80%9CMcAuliffe%20proposes%20%2428%20million%20to%20replace%20voting%20machines%20around%20the%20state%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,voting technology
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40>
"Voting case mirrors national struggle"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69168>
Posted onDecember 15, 2014 1:40 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69168>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Must-read AJC deep dive
<http://www.myajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/voting-case-mirrors-national-struggle/njRG6/#38986710.3494097.735581#__federated=1>into
a local Georgia voting controversy.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69168&title=%E2%80%9CVoting%20case%20mirrors%20national%20struggle%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inabsentee ballots <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>,election
administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
"Ohio's Redistricting Breakthrough"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69166>
Posted onDecember 15, 2014 1:35 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69166>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Zack Roth
writes<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ohio-voting-redistricting-breakthrough>for
MSNBC.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69166&title=%E2%80%9COhio%E2%80%99s%20Redistricting%20Breakthrough%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
"Denying Deference: Civil Rights and Judicial Resistance to
Administrative Constitutionalism" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69164>
Posted onDecember 15, 2014 11:12 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69164>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bertrall Ross has postedthis
draft<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2535190>on SSRN
(/University of Chicago Legal Forum/). Here is the abstract:
What determines the level of deference the Supreme Court gives to
agency interpretations of statutes? One explanation is that
deference choices accord with what I term the "deference dichotomy."
When agency interpretations are in a legislative rule adopted
through notice-and-comment procedures and have the "force of law,"
the Court applies a heightened deference framework. But when agency
interpretations are in interpretive or other non-legislative rules
adopted through less formalized procedures, the Court gives minimal
or no deference. Although scholars have advocated that approach for
decades and the Court has now adopted it as formal doctrine, the
Court's actual choice of deference framework follows a less
predictable pattern. Some scholars have suggested ideology as an
alternative explanation, but empirical studies across administrative
law domains have come to conflicting conclusions about its effect on
deference choices. Other scholars have argued that the complexity of
the statute and judicial views about the agency influence deference
choices, but these studies have not been generalized across agencies
and statutes.
In this Article, I employ a distinct approach, examining Supreme
Court deference choices across multiple agencies administering
multiple statutes in a single substantive field. I find that in the
civil rights field, the Supreme Court's deference choices appear to
have been motivated by a factor that has gone unnoticed in the
literature thus far --- judicial resistance to "administrative
constitutionalism." To the extent that civil rights agencies resolve
statutory questions central to ongoing constitutional controversies
in the Supreme Court, such as the meaning of "discrimination," they
are practicing administrative constitutionalism --- resolving
interpretive questions that rest on constitutional values. When
civil rights agencies have engaged with constitutional meaning in
this way, the Court has refused to apply heightened deference to the
agency's interpretation of the statute even when precedent or the
deference dichotomy suggests that it should.
I argue that this judicial resistance to administrative
constitutionalism implicates important questions about authority
over constitutional meaning. When the Court denies heightened
deference to administrative constructions of statutes implicating
ongoing constitutional controversies, it is preserving its exclusive
power to determine constitutional meaning. Such resistance places
the Court in the role of defining the substance of civil rights
statutes insofar as they implicate the Constitution, and thus
supplements the Court's often-remarked practice of curbing
legislative constitutionalism.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69164&title=%E2%80%9CDenying%20Deference%3A%20Civil%20Rights%20and%20Judicial%20Resistance%20to%20Administrative%20Constitutionalism%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inlegislation and legislatures
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>,statutory interpretation
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=21>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Must-Buy: Bruce Cain's "Democracy More or Less"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69161>
Posted onDecember 15, 2014 10:57 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69161>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The book is out today
<http://www.cambridge.org/hn/academic/subjects/law/us-law/democracy-more-or-less-americas-political-reform-quandary>,
and you can't be in the election law field without reading it. Here are
the blurbs, including my own:
"Everyone talks about the dysfunction of American politics, but very
few people have practical or thought-through ideas on what to do
about it. Bruce Cain has studied this topic extensively as a scholar
and has first-hand experience in the cauldron of California's
ongoing experiments in structural reform. In this book he explains
the conceptual weakness in today's most popular reform proposals and
offers a convincing alternative. I hope this book informs media,
academic and public discussions of a way out of our political morass."
James Fallows, National Correspondent,/The Atlantic/
"Bruce Cain has written a remarkable, deeply insightful book about
the American experience with political reform. His survey is
wide-ranging, distinguishing throughout a populist vision of tight
citizen control of government from a pluralist call to protect the
role of interest groups, parties and other intermediaries in
building coalitions and encouraging workable compromise. Campaign
finance, redistricting, election administration, transparency and
conflict-of interest regulation are among the topics that receive
careful attention, and Cain offers both keen criticism of policy
failure and a fresh path forward. Scholars and policy-makers will be
turning to this book for years to come."
Bob Bauer, New York University School of Law and Co-Chair of the
Presidential Commission on Election Administration
"/Democracy More or Less/is a crowning achievement from one of the
leading thinkers on election law and politics. Bruce Cain's
must-read account of the failures of political reform efforts in the
US should be carefully studied by everyone who believes in easy
solutions to the problem of money in politics, redistricting,
polarization and representation. Cain's proposed solutions merit our
attention and serious consideration."
Rick Hasen, School of Law, University of California, Irvine
"In this wide-ranging study Cain argues that reforms often fail
because they reflect a misguided attempt to increase popular
democracy. In his view the latter is like homeopathic medicine,
taken in small amounts it may be helpful, but in larger amounts it
is harmful."
Morris Fiorina, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution
"This is a book all sides of the political reform debate should
read. Its fresh thinking and insightful analysis will probably fully
please no side, but it will help all sides better understand the
scope of the issues and what others are thinking."
Benjamin L. Ginsberg, Attorney, Jones Day
"Finally, a book on American democracy that challenges romantic,
populist 'reform' naiveté and insists that serious and productive
reform must instead take into account the way political power is
actually constructed, mobilized and channeled -- particularly
through organizations, including political parties, that inevitably
and desirably exist between the isolated citizen and effective
political participation. Deceptively short and accessible, this book
raises profound and necessary challenges to more conventional ways
of thinking about the nature and fate of democracy in America."
Rick Pildes, New York University School of Law
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69161&title=Must-Buy%3A%20Bruce%20Cain%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%9CDemocracy%20More%20or%20Less%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted intheory <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=41>
"Why we still need to worry about money in politics"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69159>
Posted onDecember 15, 2014 10:50 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69159>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Lee Drutman
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/12/15/why-we-still-need-to-worry-about-money-in-politics/>for
the Monkey Cage:
Over at the New York Times, Binyamin Appelbaum is the latest
columnist to downplay the role of money in politics. His new column,
"Who Wants to Buy a Politician?
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/magazine/who-wants-to-buy-a-politician.html>"
has the same basic conclusion as David Brooks's October column
"Money Matters Less
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/10/opinion/david-brooks-money-matters-less.html>":
Money in politics isn't buying much of anything. But this conclusion
isn't warranted. We/do/still need to worry about money in politics.
Here's what Appelbaum gets wrong, and why it matters.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69159&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20we%20still%20need%20to%20worry%20about%20money%20in%20politics%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
Fred Wertheimer: "Who Shot John: The Story of How $777,600
Contribution "Limits" Ended up in The Omnibus Bill"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69157>
Posted onDecember 15, 2014 9:58 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69157>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here.
<http://www.democracy21.org/legislative-action/press-releases-legislative-action/fred-wertheimer-who-shot-john-the-story-of-how-777600-contribution-limits-ended-up-in-the-omnibus-bill/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69157&title=Fred%20Wertheimer%3A%20%E2%80%9CWho%20Shot%20John%3A%20The%20Story%20of%20How%20%24777%2C600%20Contribution%20%E2%80%9CLimits%E2%80%9D%20Ended%20up%20in%20The%20Omnibus%20Bill%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
--
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/20141215/159a3928/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/20141215/159a3928/attachment.png>
View list directory