[EL] ELB News and Commentary 6/25/14
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Tue Jun 24 21:22:19 PDT 2014
What's Next for McDaniel After Apparent Loss But No Concession in
#MSSEN Race? The Courts? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62735>
Posted on June 24, 2014 9:15 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62735>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Tonight's surprising <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62338> win for
incumbent Senator Thad Cochran
<http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/politics/2014/06/24/cochran-defeats-mcdaniel/11341509/>
over Tea Party insurgent Chris McDaniel may not be quite over. AP and
others have called the race, and the current margin of victory is
showing as over 6,000 votes.
<http://www.clarionledger.com/longform/news/politics/2014/06/24/election-results-gop-runoff/11330947/>
But McDaniel did not concede, giving a defiant speech in which he said
that "liberal Democrats" were responsible for the win. He also
mentioned "irregularities" in the vote.
Under Mississippi law, it appears too late to run as an independent
candidate. He could run as a write-in, but that seems like it would be
quite tough to do against an incumbent who got his campaign team in
order for this runoff.
So the option would be some kind of lawsuit, presumably one arguing that
those Democratic cross-over votes are illegal under the Mississippi law
defining who may vote in a party primary. I flagged
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62649> the possibility
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62694> of this type of lawsuit a few
times over the last few days. As I wrote, t I think the joint Attorney
General/SOS statement <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62662> yesterday
imposing clarity before the election would make such a lawsuit a very
tough road. Everyone knew before the election who was allowed to vote
--- basically anyone who did not vote in the Democratic primary a few
weeks ago. This is longstanding practice; heck, McDaniel himself
apparently voted in a Democratic primary in 2003.
So the idea that the courts are going to come in and subtract an
uncertain number of "illegal" Democratic votes cast presumably for
Cochran seems most unlikely. The reason to bring such a suit is to
delegitimize Cochran's win, and to keep McDaniel's supporters fired up
with incendiary talk of a "stolen" election. That might be good for
McDaniel to keep his supporters happy, but it will win him no friends in
the Republican establishment if he wants to run for something else going
forward. Indeed, given Cochran's fragility I would be very surprised to
see him serve out another full 6 year term, so there may be an
opportunity for U.S. Senator McDaniel not to far from now, if he doesn't
burn too many bridges.
As for Cochran, it is not clear that African-American/Democratic voters
were responsible for his margin of victory (the number crunching is not
yet done). But now is the time for VRAA supporters to push Sen. Cochran
to become the first Senate Republican cosponsor of the Voting Rights
Amendments Act. After all, as Cochran himself said today
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62696>, "I think it's important for
everybody to participate. Voting rights has been an issue of great
importance in Mississippi. People have really contributed a lot of
energy and effort to making sure the political process is open to everyone."
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62735&title=What%E2%80%99s%20Next%20for%20McDaniel%20After%20Apparent%20Loss%20But%20No%20Concession%20in%20%23MSSEN%20Race%3F%20The%20Courts%3F&description=>
Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, Voting Rights
Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
"I.R.S. Did Not Follow Law After Loss of Official's Emails,
Archivist Says" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62733>
Posted on June 24, 2014 3:17 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62733>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/25/us/politics/irs-did-not-follow-law-after-loss-of-officials-emails-archivist-says.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-thecaucus>:
"The Internal Revenue Service did not follow the law when it failed to
report a hard drive crash that destroyed emails belonging to a senior
official at the center of a scandal over the agency's treatment of
conservative-leaning political groups, the nation's top archivist said
Tuesday."
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62733&title=%E2%80%9CI.R.S.%20Did%20Not%20Follow%20Law%20After%20Loss%20of%20Official%E2%80%99s%20Emails%2C%20Archivist%20Says%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in tax law and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
#MSSEN: "Judge Dismisses McDaniel Supporter's Lawsuit To Prevent
Crossover Voting" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62731>
Posted on June 24, 2014 2:30 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62731>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
TPM reports.
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/judge-deborah-grambell-chris-mcdaniel-ronald-swindall-crossover>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62731&title=%23MSSEN%3A%20%E2%80%9CJudge%20Dismisses%20McDaniel%20Supporter%E2%80%99s%20Lawsuit%20To%20Prevent%20Crossover%20Voting%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, primaries
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
65 Ways to Improve Our Democracy <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62729>
Posted on June 24, 2014 2:21 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62729>by
Heather Gerken <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=6>
Today the Bipartisan Policy Center's Commission on Political Reform
<http://bipartisanpolicy.org/events/2014/06/governing-polarized-america-bipartisan-blueprint-strengthen-our-democracy>
rolled out its recommendations and report
<http://bipartisanpolicy.org/strengthen-american-democracy> today on
strengthening American democracy. Academics are usually on the outside
looking in for such processes, but I was lucky enough to serve as one of
the BPC's 29 commissioners. I left incredibly impressed with the spirit
of cooperation and bipartisanship shown by all the members of the
commission --- particularly its chairs, Senators Lott, Snowe, and
Daschle, Secretary Dan Glickman, and Governor Dick Kempthorne, who took
a hands-on role in making the report happen and were engaged in the
project from beginning to end. As cynical as I am about such processes
generally, I left this one feeling heartened.
You all should read the report, which contains no fewer than 65
recommendations for improving American democracy. For the most
contentious issues -- the ones where we disagreed on the fundamentals --
the Commission largely confined itself to proposals that were
politically realistic and still likely to accomplish something. For the
issues on which we all agreed -- especially those having to do with
leadership and service -- we tended to dream big.
Election law junkies will find much of interest in the report. First,
note that this is the second time
<http://www.supportthevoter.gov/the-commission/> in recent months that a
commission that included prominent members of both parties endorsed
early voting. As I've said elsewhere, early voting is at the "sweet
spot"
<http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2013/10/15/sweet-spot-election-reform>
of election reform. It's one of the rare examples where the so-called
the "access/integrity tradeoff" isn't a tradeoff. Early voting makes it
easier for people to vote, particularly working people. By extending
the voting process, it also helps reduce the pressures on election day
that can lead to long lines. But early voting also helps on the fraud
side of the policymaking equation. Voters crave convenience voting.
And early voting is a far superior alternative to the other, common form
of convenience voting -- absentee balloting. Absentee voting, not
in-person voting, is where there's a real risk of fraud. Early voting,
then, is both secure and convenient, and it's something that voters are
quickly coming to expect.
Second, one of the freshest ideas in the report goes to the problem of
primaries. We all know what a problem low-turnout primaries are. But
there have been precious few new ideas about how to address it. The
Commission proposes creating the equivalent of a "Super Tuesday" for
primaries -- one day in June when all primaries would take place. The
aim of the proposal is clear -- to focus the media and the parties'
turnout efforts and the attention of citizens on a single event in the
hope of building better voting habits among our citizenry. Although the
proposal was addressed to the problem of turnout, it also helps solve a
crucial problem for election administrators. Elections are expensive.
The proliferation of primaries and election days drains election
administrators of time and financial resources. There's no question
that it will take some work to consolidate all primaries on a single
day. But the savings involved could be substantial.
Finally, the Commission put some time into thinking about what happens
after all the ballots are cast. The commissioners were acutely aware of
the problems associated with recounts. The report includes a variety of
pragmatic, good-governance reforms that would lower the temperature for
the recounts that will inevitably happen (at least they would reduce the
number of things the parties can go to war over). Perhaps the most
important of these proposals were the ones aimed at reducing the number
of provisional ballots and absentee ballots that that are uncounted on
election day. As an elections lawyer will tell you, these ballots are
the ticking time bombs of the elections process. I remember being in
the Boiler Room for the Obama campaign in 2012. For a moment, it looked
as if the race might come down to Ohio, which had thousands and
thousands of provisional ballots waiting to be counted. As a member of
the recount team, I briefly wondered whether I should tell my family I
wouldn't be seeing them for the next month as the campaigns were sure to
litigate the status of each and every one.
I'll just close by noting that while I don't agree with every single
proposal made by the commission, I am honored to have my name on the
report. It's a serious report drafted by serious people. More
importantly, it's aimed at deep and serious problems. When I thought
about whether to sign, I asked myself the question that political
scientists routinely ask: as opposed to what? The proposals might not
be my vision of the perfect. But they are so far superior to the status
quo that it would be great if even a fraction of them were implemented.
Here's hoping.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62729&title=65%20Ways%20to%20Improve%20Our%20Democracy&description=>
Posted in ballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>, campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, citizen commissions
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=7>, election administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, Fixing Election Administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=4>, legislation and legislatures
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>, political parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, political polarization
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>, primaries
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>, provisional ballots
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=67>, recounts
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=50>, redistricting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Tagged bipartisan commission
<http://electionlawblog.org/?tag=bipartisan-commission>, early voting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?tag=early-voting>, election reform
<http://electionlawblog.org/?tag=election-reform>, national primary day
<http://electionlawblog.org/?tag=national-primary-day>, recounts
<http://electionlawblog.org/?tag=recounts>
"Americans have not become more politically polarized"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62726>
Posted on June 24, 2014 1:47 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62726>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Mo Fiorina
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/06/23/americans-have-not-become-more-politically-polarized/>
on the Pew study.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62726&title=%E2%80%9CAmericans%20have%20not%20become%20more%20politically%20polarized%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in political parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,
political polarization <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>
"Texas Fights Million-Dollar Legal Fee Award in Voting Case"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62724>
Posted on June 24, 2014 1:31 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62724>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
/Legal Times /reports.
<http://www.nationallawjournal.com/legaltimes/home/id=1202660665797?kw=Texas%20Fights%20Million-Dollar%20Legal%20Fee%20Award%20in%20Voting%20Case&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&cn=20140624&src=EMC-Email&pt=Legal%20Times%20Afternoon%20Update&slreturn=20140524162914>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62724&title=%E2%80%9CTexas%20Fights%20Million-Dollar%20Legal%20Fee%20Award%20in%20Voting%20Case%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
More on Whether Judge Posner Thinks He Was Wrong in Crawford Voter
ID Case. Answer: Sorta, But Not Really, But Maybe Yes
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62722>
Posted on June 24, 2014 12:58 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62722>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
You remember there was the mea culpa, then the walkback. (My take on it
was in /the Daily Beast/: Why Judge Posner Changed His Mind on Voter ID
Laws
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/23/why-judge-posner-is-right-on-voter-id-laws.html>,
/Daily Beast/, October 23, 2013). Now comes something of Judge Posner
further tying himself into knots over this in an interview with the ABA
Journal
<http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/an_interview_with_judge_richard_a._posner/>:
*JC*: You somewhat famously "pleaded guilty" to having authored the
voter ID case, /Crawford v. Marion County Election Board/, that
ultimately went to the Supreme Court. You authored an opinion
holding the voter ID law in Indiana constitutional, and the Supreme
Court then affirmed. Later, you "pleaded guilty" and it was
basically reported that you had done a mea culpa over your decision.
However, you took the position that "No, I was not making a mea
culpa. I was just saying I was pleading guilty to having authored
the opinion." Am I correct?
*RAP*: No, what I said I pleaded guilty to was not having come out
the wrong way in that case. In /Reflections on Judging/, where the
mea culpa appeared, I was complaining about judges not knowing
enough. I was pleading guilty to not having in-depth knowledge of
the problem of disenfranchisement created by voter ID laws. What we
(the judges on the panel assigned to the appeal) were presented with
was the opponents of the Indiana voter ID law saying that having to
produce a photograph of yourself, either a driver's license or a
photo from the local government office, at the polls would
discourage people---especially those without a car---from voting.
So, they argued, this is a scheme to disenfranchise the poor people,
presumably mostly Democrats. The argument on the other side was that
there is a problem of voter fraud. You have people impersonating the
registered voter and the election officials can't do anything about
it because there's no requirement that the voter produce a photo ID.
We weren't given any information about the incidence of fraud or the
incidence of deliberate disenfranchisement. We were just given
arguments. And I said in the opinion that we didn't want to get into
this. We didn't want to micromanage election rules.
What has happened since is that more evidence has emerged that these
voter ID laws are intended to disenfranchise Democrats. That
evidence either didn't exist when /Crawford/ came before us or the
lawyers didn't present it to us. I should have done more looking,
but I'm not sure the evidence actually existed at the time.
There have been cases where judges have said, usually after they've
retired, that they are sorry they voted a particular way in a
particular case. The late Justice Lewis Powell said that about
/Bowers v. Hardwick/, the Georgia sodomy case, later overruled,
which held that homosexual sodomy is not constitutionally protected
activity, even between consenting adults. I'd say that for me, for
everybody in the judiciary, there's probably a high error rate. The
law is often unclear, the facts typically underdeveloped. I'm sure
I've voted erroneously in an unknown number of the 6,000 cases that
I've heard argument in. I don't think a judge should spend his time
grading himself on the cases that he voted on many years ago.
*JC*: So do you think you got it wrong in /Crawford/?
*RAP*: I don't know because I don't know what the evidence was that
was available then. If there was no evidence available---it was just
guesswork or just a hunch, just the two major parties clashing over
this for partisan reasons---then I think we were right. When in
doubt, it doesn't make sense to create a whole new head of federal
jurisdiction requiring minute supervision of local election
officials. If there was a lot of evidence that the voter ID law was
disenfranchising honest voters rather than preventing fraud, and I
just missed that evidence, then probably I was wrong.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62722&title=More%20on%20Whether%20Judge%20Posner%20Thinks%20He%20Was%20Wrong%20in%20Crawford%20Voter%20ID%20Case.%20Answer%3A%20Sorta%2C%20But%20Not%20Really%2C%20But%20Maybe%20Yes&description=>
Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,
The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
"Senate Dems Cite Scalia's Support In Push For Campaign Money
Disclosure" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62719>
Posted on June 24, 2014 11:31 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62719>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
TPM
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/senate-democrats-cite-antonin-scalia-campaign-disclosure>:
"Senate Democrats are touting Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's
support for campaign finance disclosures as they reignite a push to pass
the DISCLOSE Act, which would require groups that spend money to
influence elections to reveal their sources of funding."
Here's the press release
<http://www.democracy21.org/legislative-action/press-releases-legislative-action/reform-groups-urge-congress-to-enact-disclose-act-to-close-gaping-disclosure-loopholes-used-to-hide-donors-from-voters/>
from reform groups about the latest incarnation of the DISCLOSE Act.
MORE
<http://blogs.rollcall.com/beltway-insiders/democrats-reintroduce-disclose-act/>
from Roll Call.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62719&title=%E2%80%9CSenate%20Dems%20Cite%20Scalia%E2%80%99s%20Support%20In%20Push%20For%20Campaign%20Money%20Disclosure%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
"'Shelby County': One Year Later" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62717>
Posted on June 24, 2014 11:19 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62717>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
New Brennan Center paper.
<http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/shelby-county-one-year-later>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62717&title=%E2%80%9C%E2%80%98Shelby%20County%E2%80%99%3A%20One%20Year%20Later%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
The Threat of "Election Observers" is Sometimes Good Enough
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62715>
Posted on June 24, 2014 10:48 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62715>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT's Teddy Schleifer tweets
<https://twitter.com/teddyschleifer/status/481487545176686592>that
according to a spokesperson for the Mississippi SOS office, there are no
reports of outside folks at the polling places today in the Senate
runoff today, as had been threatened <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62633>.
Part of the reason may be yesterday's clear guidance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62662> that observers in the polling
place are not allowed. But a FreedomWorks spokespersontold the NY Times
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/25/us/politics/poll-watchers-must-stay-outside-mississippi-officials-say.html?_r=0&referrer=>
that they'd be outside the polling place watching.
So what gives? It reminds me of earlier threats. In 2004, for example,
the Ohio Republican Party litigated all the way to the Supreme Court
over the right to have challengers at the polls (leading Justice
Stevens, then Circuit Justice for the 6th Circuit, to deny an injunction
barring the challenges in the middle of the night a few hours before
polls opened). But then the challengers never materialized. As Doug
Chapin reminds me
<https://twitter.com/HHHElections/status/481491360781176834>, True the
Vote made similar threats which did not materialize in 2012.
So what gives? My sense is that election observation requires lots of
folks with a paltry payoff. But the /threat/ of election
observation/challenging is cheap. If the idea is to make people think
that the polls are going to be a zoo, and voters are going to be hassled
and waste a lot of time waiting to vote, they will be deterred. If you
can raise the costs of voting by suggesting challenges in certain areas
(say Democratic and/or African American precincts), you might lower
turnout without having to assemble anyone to challenge.
Maybe that was the thinking all along in #MSSEN. Or maybe the SOS order
was a deterrent. I don't know.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62715&title=The%20Threat%20of%20%E2%80%9CElection%20Observers%E2%80%9D%20is%20Sometimes%20Good%20Enough&description=>
Posted in chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
IRS Agrees to Pay $50K in Damages for Leaking NOM's Confidential Tax
Information <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62713>
Posted on June 24, 2014 10:20 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62713>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Big news
<http://dailysignal.com/2014/06/24/irs-admits-wrongdoing-pay-50000-leaking-marriage-groups-tax-return/>
for IRS to admit wrongdoing and pay.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62713&title=IRS%20Agrees%20to%20Pay%20%2450K%20in%20Damages%20for%20Leaking%20NOM%E2%80%99s%20Confidential%20Tax%20Information&description=>
Posted in tax law and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
"Governing in a Polarized America: A Bipartisan Blueprint to
Strengthen our Democracy" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62710>
Posted on June 24, 2014 9:51 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62710>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Release <http://bipartisanpolicy.org/strengthen-american-democracy>:
The Bipartisan Policy Center launched the Commission on Political
Reform in 2013 to investigate the causes and consequences of
America's partisan political divide and to advocate for specific
reforms that will improve the political process and that will work
in a polarized atmosphere.
The commission met at public and private institutions across the
country to hear from interested citizens, political leaders, and
issue experts about the problems and potential solutions. It is
clear that Americans are concerned about the lack of civil discourse
and the increasing inability of the U.S. political system to grapple
with the nation's biggest challenges. These shortcomings put the
nation at risk of losing its standing in the world.
This report, /Governing in a Polarized America: A Bipartisan
Blueprint to Strengthen our Democracy/, is the culmination of the
commission's public and private deliberations, but it is not the end
of its work. Our recommendations provide a realistic path forward to
strengthen U.S. democracy. The commission does not pretend to have
discovered the cure to all that ails democracy. But, 29 Americans
have come together as part of our commission to embrace a truly
bipartisan reform agenda.
The commission identifies reforms in three specific areas: the
electoral process, the process by which Congress legislates and
manages its own affairs, and the ability of Americans to plug into
the nation's civic life through public service. We chose to focus on
three broad areas of reform, because the polarization in the United
States runs deeply through its institutions, affects the ways
Americans elect political leaders and how the institutions of
government operate, and even puts in danger Americans' deep-seated
desire to serve their nation.
*Electoral System Reform*
*View report section
<http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/BPC%20CPR%20Report.pdf#page=31>*
l *View recommendations*
<http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/BPC%20CPR%20Report.pdf#page=13>
The commission is deeply concerned about the distrust that permeates
the entire electoral process and that reverberates through both
federal and state legislatures. Americans must be able to trust that
their electoral system is fair. States will need to take the lead in
reformulating an electoral system that earns back the people's trust.
*Problem*
*Our Solution*
Legislative districts are drawn in an overly partisan manner.
States should adopt redistricting commissions that have the
bipartisan support of the legislature and the electorate.
Voter turnout in congressional primaries is too low and the
electorate is confused about when states' primary elections occur.
States and political parties should strive to dramatically increase
the number of voters who cast ballots in political primaries to 30
percent of eligible voters by 2020 and 35 percent by 2026.
States should create a single congressional primary date in June.
Inaccurate voter-registration lists. Improve access: identify
eligible unregistered voters and contact them with an opportunity to
register to vote.
Ensure integrity: states should encourage direct opportunities for
voters to input their own registration information and to update
their addresses and conduct crosschecks with other states' lists and
with other databases to eliminate ineligible registrations or to
correct mistakes on registration rolls.
Americans don't know who are financing elections. Disclose all
political contributions, including those made to outside and
independent groups.
Members of Congress focus too much time on fundraising at the
expense of governing. Congress should pass legislation requiring
detailed disclosure of spending by congressional leadership PACs and
mandate that leadership PAC funds be used solely for political
activities (such as donations to other candidates) and not for
personal use. Leadership PACs should be limited to the top three
congressional leaders of each party in both the House of
Representatives and the Senate.
*Congressional Reform*
*View report section
<http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/BPC%20CPR%20Report.pdf#page=53>*
l *View recommendations*
<http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/BPC%20CPR%20Report.pdf#page=14>
The commission, consisting of 29 thought leaders, puts forth
recommendations that foster a modern, strong, and vibrant political
system that accepts the strongly held differences of opinion among
citizens and channels these differences in productive ways. Congress
has shown that it can still come together on a bipartisan basis to
move substantive legislation.
This is not an effort to return Congress to the "good old
days." Commissioners recognize that hyperpolarization pervades not
just Congress but the electorate as well. However, the commission
believes that Congress can function more efficiently despite that
polarization. The commission's recommendations are incremental,
politically viable, and, most importantly, achievable if citizens
and our leaders are ready to confront the structural and system-wide
weaknesses in a fair and bipartisan way.
*Problem*
*Our Solution*
There is not enough time spent legislating. The House of
Representatives and the Senate should schedule synchronized,
five-day workweeks in Washington, with three weeks in session
followed by one-week recesses.
Interparty and inter-branch communication has been nonexistent. The
president should hold regular, monthly meetings with congressional
leaders; similarly, congressional leadership should invite the
president to attend joint caucuses twice a year.
Power in Congress is too centralized, which marginalizes individual
members willing to formulate compromises. Committee chairs should
solicit the views of all committee members--- especially those in
the minority---well in advance of a committee markup. To reconcile
differences, full-fledged conference committees between the chambers
on important legislation are essential to ensuring greater member
participation in the policy process.
Threats in the Senate to change the filibuster rules to eviscerate
minority rights further raise the temperature in an already
polarized body. The Senate should only make changes to its rules at
the start of a new Congress. These rules changes will only take
effect when two-thirds of the Senate agrees to them.
The Senate minority is shut out of the legislating process to the
detriment of good policymaking. The Senate should establish a
process that gives priority consideration to a minimum of ten
amendments offered by and alternating between senators of both parties
The Senate is gridlocked by a normalization of the use of threatened
or real filibusters. The Senate should eliminate filibusters on
motions to proceed by limiting debate to two hours.
Congress has failed to complete the appropriations process on time
for more than a decade. Congress should adopt a biennial budget
process that includes two-year budget resolutions and appropriations
bills, with expedited consideration given to enacting into law
two-year discretionary spending ceilings for enforcement purposes.
*Public Service*
*View report section
<http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/BPC%20CPR%20Report.pdf#page=73>*
l *View recommendations*
<http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/BPC%20CPR%20Report.pdf#page=16>
Successful democracies require an educated citizenry who actively
participates in civic life. Americans must re-engage in ways that
reinforce the notion that, as Americans, we are all part of a common
enterprise that requires a lifetime of civic engagement.
*Problem*
*Our Solution*
Fewer and fewer Americans aspire to careers in public service. All
Americans ages 18 to 28 should commit to one full year of service
within their communities or at a national level through military
service, civilian service, volunteer service, or by running for office.
Younger Americans are less likely than those in previous generations
to pursue careers in community, national, and public service.
Schools should refocus on their original civic missions to provide
the core values, knowledge, and ideas from U.S. history in civic
learning that will equip the next generation of active, engaged
citizens. Colleges and universities should reaffirm their missions
to develop engaged and active citizens and encourage service in
formal and informal programs.
Federal service opportunities, like the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps,
turn away thousands of volunteers each year for lack of available
positions. The federal government must leverage additional
resources to increase the supply of available positions in
AmeriCorps, VISTA, and the Peace Corps.
The public and private sectors should create a nationally recognized
"qualified-service" opportunity program to match the supply of
existing yearlong service opportunities to the demand of applicants.
The appointments process discourages many of the most qualified
individuals. Presidential administrations should open political
appointments to the widest possible pool of applicants by
streamlining the process and not imposing overly burdensome pre- and
post-employment restrictions.
*
*Download the full report*
<http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/files/BPC%20CPR%20Governing%20in%20a%20Polarized%20America.pdf>
*
*Download the executive summary
<http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/files/BPC%20CPR%20Executive%20Summary.pdf>*
*
*Download the one page summary
<http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/5296_BPC_CPR_onepager.pdf>*
*
*Download the recommendations overview
<http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/5296_BPC_CPR_3Reforms_v2.pdf>*
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62710&title=%E2%80%9CGoverning%20in%20a%20Polarized%20America%3A%20A%20Bipartisan%20Blueprint%20to%20Strengthen%20our%20Democracy%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in legislation and legislatures
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>, political parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, political polarization
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>, redistricting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
"When Voters Pull the Trigger: Can Direct Democracy Restrain
Legislative Excesses?" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62708>
Posted on June 24, 2014 9:25 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62708>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Vladimir Kogan has postedthis draft
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2456809> on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
Direct democracy is sometimes described as a "gun behind the door"
that influences state policy outcomes, but little is known about how
legislators react when voters actually pull the trigger. Leveraging
the high-profile referendum defeat in November 2011 of a
controversial law passed by the Ohio legislature, I examine the
legislative response to voter disaffection. Using interest groups to
"bridge" roll call votes immediately before and after the election,
I show that the measure's defeat induced substantial moderation on
the part of the Republican legislative majority responsible for the
unpopular law, while leaving the voting behavior of opposition
Democratic legislators largely unchanged. The results suggest that
direct democracy has the potential to restrain legislative excesses
and alleviate --- albeit not eliminate --- the problem of leapfrog
representation that characterizes modern day policymaking in
polarized state legislatures.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62708&title=%E2%80%9CWhen%20Voters%20Pull%20the%20Trigger%3A%20Can%20Direct%20Democracy%20Restrain%20Legislative%20Excesses%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in direct democracy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>,
political parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, political
polarization <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>
"Shelby County One Year Later: Good for Voting Rights?"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62706>
Posted on June 24, 2014 9:09 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62706>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Franita Tolson
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/franita-tolson/shelby-county-one-year-voting-rights_b_5525469.html>:
"Despite these developments, the lesson of /Shelby County/ should not be
that states have broad authority to impose restrictive voting
regulations. The true lesson of the decision, one year later, is that
even the most painful and costly loss can be a vehicle for effectuating
change. The loss of the preclearance regime forced advocates to be more
aggressive in using creative legal arguments and obscure statutory
provisions in voting rights litigation."
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62706&title=%E2%80%9CShelby%20County%20One%20Year%20Later%3A%20Good%20for%20Voting%20Rights%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>, VRAA
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=81>
Is Senator McDaniel One of the Few People Who Could Legally Be
Blocked from Voting Today in Mississippi?
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62704>
Posted on June 24, 2014 8:51 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62704>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Clever
<http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/24/could-poll-watchers-stop-chris-mcdaniel-from-voting-for-himself/>
Daily Caller item.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62704&title=Is%20Senator%20McDaniel%20One%20of%20the%20Few%20People%20Who%20Could%20Legally%20Be%20Blocked%20from%20Voting%20Today%20in%20Mississippi%3F&description=>
Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
"Our View: Open primaries good, but ranked-choice better"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62702>
Posted on June 24, 2014 8:38 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62702>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Portland Press Herald
<http://www.pressherald.com/2014/06/24/open-primaries-good-but-ranked-choice-better/>editorial.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62702&title=%E2%80%9COur%20View%3A%20Open%20primaries%20good%2C%20but%20ranked-choice%20better%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in alternative voting systems
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>, primaries
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
"Fifty Years After Freedom Summer, the Voting Rights Act Is Needed
More Than Ever" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62700>
Posted on June 24, 2014 8:36 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62700>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ari Berman writes
<http://www.thenation.com/blog/180389/fifty-years-after-freedom-summer-voting-rights-act-needed-more-ever#>
for /The Nation./
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62700&title=%E2%80%9CFifty%20Years%20After%20Freedom%20Summer%2C%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20Is%20Needed%20More%20Than%20Ever%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>, VRAA
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=81>
"Will Mississippi's Black Democrats Save A Republican?"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62698>
Posted on June 24, 2014 8:35 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62698>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NPR reports.
<http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/06/24/324919195/will-mississippis-black-democrats-save-a-republican>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62698&title=%E2%80%9CWill%20Mississippi%E2%80%99s%20Black%20Democrats%20Save%20A%20Republican%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
Thad Cochran, Voting Rights Champion
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62696>
Posted on June 24, 2014 8:18 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62696>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
"I think it's important for everybody to participate. Voting rights has
been an issue of great importance in Mississippi. People have really
contributed a lot of energy and effort to making sure the political
process is open to everyone."
---Sen. Thad Cochran
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/racial-politics-roils-mississippi-runoff--2>,
via TPM <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/quote-of-the-day--21>
Funny what concentrates the mind on something.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62696&title=Thad%20Cochran%2C%20Voting%20Rights%20Champion&description=>
Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
--
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/20140624/535a8f6c/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/20140624/535a8f6c/attachment.png>
View list directory