[EL] Walker/Wisconsin Club for Growth

[Steve Hoersting]

I see Adam's link was only to the article.

Let me be clear: The release of the documents in this matter -- all things
being equal; given that the raid has taken place -- only helps the targets
of this investigation. Given that Team Schmitz raided these Wisconsin
citizens, and put the matter under a John Doe seal, I am for the release of
the documents. Well done, Easterbrook.

It is the underlying legal theory and allegations with which I have
reservations.

Best,

Steve


On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Michael P McDonald <mmcdon at gmu.edu> wrote:

> And the Wisconsin Club for Growth agreed to the document release, if not
> embraced it, so they might wage "lawfare", too.
>
> From Andrew Grossman, attorney for Wisconsin Club for Growth:
>
> "These documents show how the John Doe prosecutors adopted a blatantly
> unconstitutional interpretation of Wisconsin law that they used to launch a
> secret criminal investigation targeting conservatives throughout
> Wisconsin," Grossman said in an email Thursday. "Sunlight is the best
> disinfectant, and this is a story that needs to be told to prevent more
> abuses and to hold the John Doe prosecutors accountable for violating the
> rights of Wisconsinites."
>
>
> http://www.northjersey.com/news/prosecutors-wisconsin-gov-walker-part-of-criminal-scheme-1.1038361
>
> (Noted with full irony the statement that "sunlight is the best
> disinfectant" with regards to an issue touching campaign finance)
>
> ============
> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
> Associate Professor
> George Mason University
> 4400 University Drive - 3F4
> Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
>
> phone:   703-993-4191 (office)
> e-mail:  dr.michael.p.mcdonald at gmail.com
> web:     http://elections.gmu.edu
> twitter: @ElectProject
>
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Adam Bonin
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 3:29 PM
> To: 'Steve Hoersting'; 'Byron Tau'
> Cc: 'law-election at UCI.edu'
> Subject: Re: [EL] Walker/Wisconsin Club for Growth
>
> Let’s be accurate: the prosecutor assembled this evidence over months and
> years, and he did not make the decision to release anything today.  It was
> 7th Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook who ordered the documents to be
> released.
> http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/federal-judge-unseals-hundreds-of-documents-in-john-doe-probe-b99295017z1-263839791.html
> ]
>
> --Adam
>
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Steve
> Hoersting
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 2:57 PM
> To: Byron Tau
> Cc: law-election at UCI.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] Walker/Wisconsin Club for Growth
>
> 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
> 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’”
> Posted on June 19, 2014 10:30 am by Rick Hasen
> Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:
> 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.
>
> Posted in campaign finance, chicanery
> Texas Swagger Costs It Attorneys Fees in Voting Rights Case
> Posted on June 19, 2014 10:21 am by Rick Hasen
> See this order 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.
>
>
> Posted in Voting Rights Act
> “First Person Singular: The dirty secrets of ballot counting”
> Posted on June 19, 2014 10:01 am by Rick Hasen
> Paul Mitchell has lead story at Electionline Weekly.
>
> Posted in election administration
> “Soft Money’s Squishy Political Influence”
> Posted on June 19, 2014 9:20 am by Rick Hasen
> NYT’s “The Upshot” on Tokaji-Strause.
>
> Posted in campaign finance
> J. Christian Adams Wrongly Suggests Poll Workers Should Exclude Democrats
> from Voting in Mississippi Primary, Ignoring Relevant Case Law and an AG
> Opinion
> Posted on June 19, 2014 9:12 am by Rick Hasen
> Via Josh Marshall, comes a story at Breitbart, Former DOJ Attorney:
> Illegal for Democrats to Vote in MS 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, 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 This practice is forbidden by the
> plain language of § 23–15–575. 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, 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. § 23–15–571.3
> See 2003 WL 21962318 (Miss. A.G. Op. No. 2003–0316 July 21, 2003).
> 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 …
>         If a challenge of a voter is properly initiated in strict
> accordance with Section 23–15–579 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.
> ….
>       [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) and
> Section 23–15–575.
> Id.
> (FN 3 read: 3
> Section 23–15–571 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.
>
> Posted in political parties, primaries
> “Unregulated, Outside Spending by Koch-Related Group Plagues Local
> Elections, Public Citizen Report Finds”
> Posted on June 19, 2014 7:46 am by Rick Hasen
> Press release: “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 today by Public Citizen.”
>
> Posted in campaign finance
> Three-Judge Court Unanimously Dismisses Partisan Gerrymandering Claim
> Against Texas 2013 Redistricting
> Posted on June 19, 2014 7:43 am by Rick Hasen
> You can find the order here.
>
> Posted in redistricting
> “Campaign-Finance Reform Has to Be Cross-Partisan”
> Posted on June 19, 2014 7:27 am by Rick Hasen
> Lessig in the Atlantic.
>
> Posted in campaign finance
> “The Limits of ‘The New Soft Money’”
> Posted on June 19, 2014 7:04 am by Rick Hasen
> Bauer on the Tokaji-Strause report.
>
> Posted in campaign finance
> Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee [Corrected] Votes 5-4 in Favor of
> Campaign Finance Amendment
> Posted on June 19, 2014 6:50 am by Rick Hasen
> So reports Peter Overby.
> [This post has been corrected and bumped to the top.]
>
> Posted in campaign finance
> --
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
>
> --
> Stephen M. Hoersting
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140619/796b0b91/attachment.html>