[EL] Walker/Wisconsin Club for Growth
Steve Hoersting
hoersting at gmail.com
Thu Jun 19 11:57:06 PDT 2014
I am not the source you're looking for, Byron.
But I will say this is regrettable. If issue advocacy is at the heart of
the activity in question, as all court documents up-to-now bear out, then
any "excitement" on anyone's part doesn't raise the facts to the level of
legal significance.
Boy, these are interesting allegations for this prosecutor to make:
1) Six months out from the November election.
2) On the heels of Walker's settlement negotiations. I haven't heard the
results of those. Are we to infer Walker didn't see the case the same way
the prosecutors did, was unwilling to settle, and this press release is
meant to correct his thinking?
3) In hopes of winning another set of elections using Lawfare? If so, this
is becoming a pattern.
Allow me to point out that these events -- IRS targeting and "lost" emails,
as an example -- mark a trend no society can long withstand. Whether
Democrat, Green, Libertarian, or Republican, this is not a state of affairs
you want your kids growing up in.
Steve
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Byron Tau <btau at politico.com> wrote:
> If anyone has been closely following the legal issues in this Walker
> case and wants to walk me through them, I'm at either number below and
> poking around on something regarding the election law around this.
>
> --
> Byron Tau
> Lobbying and campaign finance reporter || POLITICO
> c: 202-441-1171
> d: 703-341-4610
> Follow: @byrontau <http://twitter.com/byrontau>
> Subscribe to: http://www.politico.com/politicoinfluence/
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Rick Hasen [
> rhasen at law.uci.edu]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:34 PM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] more news 6/19/14
>
> Breaking: “Prosecutors allege Walker at center of ‘criminal scheme’”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62540>
> Posted on June 19, 2014 10:30 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62540> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel
> <http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/federal-judge-unseals-hundreds-of-documents-in-john-doe-probe-b99295017z1-263839791.html>
> :
>
> Prosecutors allege that Gov. Scott Walker was at the center of an effort
> to illegally coordinate fundraising among conservative groups to help his
> campaign and those of Republican senators fend off recall elections during
> 2011 and ’12, according to documents unsealed Thursday.
>
> In the documents, prosecutors lay out what they call a “criminal scheme”
> to bypass state election laws by Walker, his campaign and two top deputies
> — R.J. Johnson and Deborah Jordahl.
>
> The governor and his close confidants helped raise money and control
> spending through 12 conservative groups during the recall elections,
> according to the prosecutors’ filings.
>
> The documents include an email in which Walker tells Karl Rove, former top
> adviser to President George W. Bush, that Johnson would lead the
> coordination campaign. Johnson is also chief adviser to Wisconsin Club for
> Growth, a conservative group active in the recall elections.
>
> You can find the documents here.
> <http://host.madison.com/unsealed-documents-from-john-doe-ii-lawsuit/pdf_e6b7181d-e5f7-576e-a60d-1d67d373846c.html>
> [image: Share]
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62540&title=Breaking%3A%20%E2%80%9CProsecutors%20allege%20Walker%20at%20center%20of%20%E2%80%98criminal%20scheme%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
> chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
> Texas Swagger Costs It Attorneys Fees in Voting Rights Case
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62537>
> Posted on June 19, 2014 10:21 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62537> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> See this order
> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/texas-order.pdf> in *State
> of Texas v. Davis*:
>
> This matter presents a case study in how not to respond to a motion for
> attorney fees and costs. At issue is whether defendant-intervenors, who
> prevailed in Voting Rights Act litigation before a three-judge panel, may
> recoup attorney fees and costs even though the Supreme Court vacated that
> opinion in light of the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in a different
> lawsuit that declared a section of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional.
> A quick search of the Federal Reporter reveals the complexity of this
> narrow question. Yet, rather than engage the fee applicants, Plaintiff
> Texas basically ignores the arguments supporting an award of fees and
> costs. In a three-page filing entitled “Advisory,” Texas trumpets the
> Supreme Court’s decision, expresses indignation at having to respond at
> all, and presumes that the motion for attorney fees is so frivolous that
> Texas need not provide further briefing in opposition unless requested.
> Such an opposition is insufficient in this jurisdiction. Circuit precedent
> and the Local Rules of this Court provide that the failure to respond to an
> opposing party’s arguments results in waiver as to the unaddressed
> contentions, and the Court finds that Texas’s “Advisory” presents no
> opposition on the applicable law. Accordingly, the Court will award the
> requested fees and costs.
>
>
> [image: Share]
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62537&title=Texas%20Swagger%20Costs%20It%20Attorneys%20Fees%20in%20Voting%20Rights%20Case&description=>
> Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> “First Person Singular: The dirty secrets of ballot counting”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62535>
> Posted on June 19, 2014 10:01 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62535> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Paul Mitchell <http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly>
> has lead story at Electionline Weekly.
> [image: Share]
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62535&title=%E2%80%9CFirst%20Person%20Singular%3A%20The%20dirty%20secrets%20of%20ballot%20counting%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
> “Soft Money’s Squishy Political Influence”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62530>
> Posted on June 19, 2014 9:20 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62530> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NYT’s “The Upshot”
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/19/upshot/soft-moneys-squishy-political-influence.html?_r=0>
> on Tokaji-Strause.
> [image: Share]
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62530&title=%E2%80%9CSoft%20Money%E2%80%99s%20Squishy%20Political%20Influence%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> J. Christian Adams Wrongly Suggests Poll Workers Should Exclude Democrats
> from Voting in Mississippi Primary, Ignoring Relevant Case Law and an AG
> Opinion <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62528>
> Posted on June 19, 2014 9:12 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62528> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Via Josh Marshall <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/in-it-to-win-it--7>,
> comes a story at Breitbart, Former DOJ Attorney: Illegal for Democrats to
> Vote in MS GOP Primary Runoff
> <http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/06/18/Top-Ex-DOJ-Attorney-It-s-Illegal-For-Democrats-To-Vote-In-Mississippi-s-GOP-Primary-Runoff>.
> Here’s the relevant part of the article:
>
> J. Christian Adams, a former Civil Rights Division attorney at the
> Department of Justice with experience litigating election law cases in
> Mississippi, said a law there prevents people from voting in the primary
> for candidates they don’t plan to support in the general election….
>
> The Mississippi law Adams cites, MS Code 23-15-575, states: “No person
> shall be eligible to participate in any primary election unless he intends
> to support the nominations made in which he participates.”
>
> “Mississippi law prohibits Democrats from voting in a Republican primary,”
> Adams said in an emailed statement. “Obviously poll workers aren’t mind
> readers. But if someone doesn’t intend to support the nominee in November,
> then that person isn’t allowed to vote in the Republican primary.”
>
> In addition, the state Democratic Party sued Gov. Haley Barbour and others
> in the mid-2000s regarding just that matter—prompting United States
> District Judge W. Allen Pepper to write in a June 8, 2007, opinion that it
> is the responsibility and right of the political party holding a primary
> election to ensure that the elections are fair and legal. In the case of a
> Republican primary and runoff, only Republicans vote, and in the case of a
> Democrat primary and runoff, only Democrats vote—and it is the role of the
> political parties to ensure that process is handled correctly.
>
> The Supreme Court determined in a 2005 case that the First Amendment
> “protects the right of political parties to associate with fellow members
> and disassociate with non-members,” Judge Pepper wrote in his opinion. So
> technically it’s the party’s responsibility—i.e., in this case, state GOP
> chairman Joe Nosef’s responsibility—to protect GOP voters’ First Amendment
> rights by working to keep Democrats from voting in the GOP primary runoff.
>
> Here’s what Adams does not tell you in the piece: Judge Pepper’s opinion
> in * Mississippi State Democratic Party v. Barbour*, 491 F.Supp.2d 641
> (N.D. Miss. 2007) was reversed and remanded in an opinion by Judge Edith
> Jones for a unanimous 5th Circuit, 529 F.3d 538 (5th Cir. 2008). In the
> course of holding that the state Democratic Party lacked standing and that
> the case was not appropriate for federal court review, Judge Jones rejected
> the analysis of Judge Pepper, and explained how MS Code 23-15-575 had been
> interpreted by the Mississippi Attorney General:
>
> In June 2003, the Mississippi State Democratic Party and Mississippi State
> Democratic Party Executive Committee (collectively “MSDP”) asked the state
> attorney general (“AG”) how the party could enforce § 23–15–575
> <https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000933&cite=MSSTS23-15-575&originatingDoc=I303e9f792ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29>,
> which it had not done before. The MSDP wanted to curtail alleged “party
> raiding” and crossover voting “whereby voters in sympathy with one party
> designate themselves as voters of another party so as to influence or
> determine the results of the other party’s primary.”2
> <https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/I303e9f792ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7/View/FullText.html?listSource=RelatedInfo&docFamilyGuid=I303e9f7a2ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7&originationContext=appellatehistory&transitionType=HistoryItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29#co_footnote_B00222016191757>
> This practice is forbidden by the plain language of § 23–15–575
> <https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000933&cite=MSSTS23-15-575&originatingDoc=I303e9f792ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29>.
> The AG responded with an opinion (“*Cole Opinion*”) stating that a party
> may challenge a voter in a primary only in accordance with Miss.Code Ann.
> § 23–15–579
> <https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000933&cite=MSSTS23-15-579&originatingDoc=I303e9f792ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29>,
> which outlines strict procedures for challenging a voter. The AG stated
> further that a voter may be challenged only for the reasons listed in Miss.Code
> Ann. § 23–15–571
> <https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000933&cite=MSSTS23-15-571&originatingDoc=I303e9f792ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29>
> .3
> <https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/I303e9f792ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7/View/FullText.html?listSource=RelatedInfo&docFamilyGuid=I303e9f7a2ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7&originationContext=appellatehistory&transitionType=HistoryItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29#co_footnote_B00332016191757> *See
> *2003 WL 21962318 (Miss. A.G. Op. No. 2003–0316 July 21, 2003)
> <https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=0295698412&pubNum=0000999&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29>.
> According to the AG:
>
> [W]e find nothing that would allow a poll worker, poll watcher or
> another voter to ask a voter if he or she intends to support the nominees
> of the party once the voter presents himself or herself to vote. Challenges
> may be made … for the reason that the voter does not intend to support the
> nominees of the party per Section 23–15–575
> <https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000933&cite=MSSTS23-15-575&originatingDoc=I303e9f792ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29>
> …
> If a challenge of a voter is properly initiated in strict
> accordance with Section 23–15–579
> <https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000933&cite=MSSTS23-15-579&originatingDoc=I303e9f792ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29>
> and the voter then openly declares that he or she does not intend to
> support the nominees of the party, the poll workers could find the
> challenge to be well taken and mark the ballot “challenged” or “rejected”
> consistent with the provisions of said statute. On the other hand, if the
> voter openly declares his or her intent to support the nominees, then a
> challenge is not proper under Section 23–15–575
> <https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000933&cite=MSSTS23-15-575&originatingDoc=I303e9f792ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29>
> .
> ….
> [W]e have previously opined that absent an obvious factual
> situation such as an independent candidate attempting to vote in a party’s
> primary, the stated intent of the voter is controlling…. No past action by
> a voter can form the basis of a valid challenge under Section
> 23–15–571(3)(g)
> <https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000933&cite=MSSTS23-15-571&originatingDoc=I303e9f792ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7&refType=SP&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29#co_pp_1988000045090>
> and Section 23–15–575
> <https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000933&cite=MSSTS23-15-575&originatingDoc=I303e9f792ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29>
> .
> *Id.*
>
> (FN 3 read: 3
> <https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/I303e9f792ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7/View/FullText.html?listSource=RelatedInfo&docFamilyGuid=I303e9f7a2ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7&originationContext=appellatehistory&transitionType=HistoryItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29#co_footnoteReference_B00332016191757_ID0EVFBG>
>
> Section 23–15–571
> <https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000933&cite=MSSTS23-15-571&originatingDoc=I303e9f792ceb11ddb6a3a099756c05b7&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29>
> states that “[a] person offering to vote may be challenged upon the
> following grounds”:
> (a) That he is not a registered voter in the precinct;
> (b) That he is not the registered voter under whose name he has applied
> to vote;
> (c) That he has already voted in the election;
> (d) That he is not a resident in the precinct where he is registered;
> (e) That he has illegally registered to vote;
> (f) That he has removed his ballot from the polling place; or
>
> (g) That he is otherwise disqualified by law.)
>
> In other words, the state law has been interpreted by the state attorney
> general so that poll workers may *not* challenge a voter, despite that
> voters past history of voting for Democrats unless the voter comes in and
> “openly declares that he or she does not intend to support the nominees of
> the party.”
> It sure seems that the Breitbart story should have mentioned the appeal,
> and vacating of Judge Pepper’s opinion, as well as the AG opinion.
> [image: Share]
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62528&title=J.%20Christian%20Adams%20Wrongly%20Suggests%20Poll%20Workers%20Should%20Exclude%20Democrats%20from%20Voting%20in%20Mississippi%20Primary%2C%20Ignoring%20Relevant%20Case%20Law%20and%20an%20AG%20Opinion&description=>
> Posted in political parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,
> primaries <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
> “Unregulated, Outside Spending by Koch-Related Group Plagues Local
> Elections, Public Citizen Report Finds”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62526>
> Posted on June 19, 2014 7:46 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62526> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Press release
> <http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/pressroomredirect.cfm?ID=4223>:
> “Unregulated, undisclosed spending made possible by the U.S. Supreme
> Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has
> left local communities defenseless against big money national organizations
> intent on interfering with their elections, according to a report released
> <http://www.citizen.org/americans-for-prosperity-local-affairs-report>
> today by Public Citizen.”
> [image: Share]
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62526&title=%E2%80%9CUnregulated%2C%20Outside%20Spending%20by%20Koch-Related%20Group%20Plagues%20Local%20Elections%2C%20Public%20Citizen%20Report%20Finds%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> Three-Judge Court Unanimously Dismisses Partisan Gerrymandering Claim
> Against Texas 2013 Redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62524>
> Posted on June 19, 2014 7:43 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62524> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> You can find the order here. <http://t.co/QPHnNvZbWk>
> [image: Share]
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62524&title=Three-Judge%20Court%20Unanimously%20Dismisses%20Partisan%20Gerrymandering%20Claim%20Against%20Texas%202013%20Redistricting&description=>
> Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
> “Campaign-Finance Reform Has to Be Cross-Partisan”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62522>
> Posted on June 19, 2014 7:27 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62522> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Lessig in the Atlantic.
> <http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/campaign-finance-reform-has-to-be-cross-partisan/372983/>
> [image: Share]
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62522&title=%E2%80%9CCampaign-Finance%20Reform%20Has%20to%20Be%20Cross-Partisan%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> “The Limits of ‘The New Soft Money’” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62520>
> Posted on June 19, 2014 7:04 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62520> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Bauer <http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2014/06/limits-new-soft-money/>on
> the Tokaji-Strause report <http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/thenewsoftmoney/>.
> [image: Share]
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62520&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Limits%20of%20%E2%80%98The%20New%20Soft%20Money%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee [Corrected] Votes 5-4 in Favor of
> Campaign Finance Amendment <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62507>
> Posted on June 19, 2014 6:50 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62507> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> So reports Peter Overby.
> <https://twitter.com/peteroverby/status/479358474066087936>
>
> [This post has been corrected and bumped to the top.]
> [image: Share]
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62507&title=Senate%20Judiciary%20Committee%20Subcommittee%20%5BCorrected%5D%20Votes%205-4%20in%20Favor%20of%20Campaign%20Finance%20Amendment&description=>
> Posted in campaign 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 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/http://electionlawblog.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
--
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140619/a0e3c1a1/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/20140619/a0e3c1a1/attachment.png>
View list directory