[EL] Breaking News in Prop. 8 disclosure case/more news

Tue May 20 09:07:05 PDT 2014

Regarding "the AG’s refusal to defend Prop. 8 in federal court" and Judge
Wallace's opinion:  The problems, assuming there are any, are a result not
of the AG's refusal to *defend *the statute, but instead of his failure to
*appeal* an adverse judgment (and his failure to challenge Judge Walker's
extension of the injunction to non-plaintiffs).  That is to say, if Jerry
Brown had done what Eric Holder did in *Windsor*, perhaps the Court would
have reached the merits -- even though in neither case did the AG defend
the constitutionality.  (Just to be clear:  I'm not taking a view here on
whether that would have been a good thing for Brown to appeal (and the
Court to reach the merits), or on whether California ought to amend its law
to require the AG to appeal.  Just pointing out that, as a practical
matter, the important decision is whether to appeal, not whether to defend.)

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>     Breaking News: Ninth Circuit Rejects Further Disclosure Challenges in
> Prop 8 Case <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61622>
>  Posted on May 20, 2014 8:55 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61622> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I have posted the opinion here<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/ProtectMarriage-v.-Bowen_Opinion_5.20.14.pdf>
> .
>
> All three judges on the panel rejected the facial challenge to California
> law requiring the public disclosure of the names of anyone giving $100 or
> more to political committees supporting or opposing ballot measures.
>
> On a 2-1 vote, with Judge Wallace dissenting, the panel also rejected the
> as-applied challenge (claiming the donors to this particular committee
> faced harassment) on grounds that the challenge was moot. Judge Wallace
> dissented, although he conceded binding Ninth Circuit precedent supported
> the majority’s result. He apparently wants an en banc on the question of
> mootness.
>
> Judge Wallace also added this, about the AG’s refusal to defend Prop. 8 in
> federal court:
>
> To my knowledge, nothing in California law requires the Attorney General
> to defend the Constitution of California, and other duly enacted laws of
> the State of California, from challenges in the courts. Nonetheless, it
> seems clear that the confusion created by the decisions discussed above,
> and the resulting abrogation of the federal courts’ decisions due to lack
> of standing, could have been avoided if the Attorney General of California
> had defended Proposition 8 on appeal in the federal
> courts. This suggests that the State of California would do well to
> consider legislating a process whereby the State’s elected officials would
> be obliged to defend the State’s duly enacted laws in court, rather than
> leaving it to the unfettered discretion of the Attorney General to pick and
> choose which of the State’s laws he or she elects to defend.
>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D61622&title=Breaking%20News%3A%20Ninth%20Circuit%20Rejects%20Further%20Disclosure%20Challenges%20in%20Prop%208%20Case&description=>
>    Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>      D’Souza Pleads Guilty <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61620>
>  Posted on May 20, 2014 8:36 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61620> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> AP reports<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016-filmmaker-pleads-guilty-in-campaign-case/2014/05/20/b9fb16ea-e029-11e3-9442-54189bf1a809_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost>on plea deal of 10 to 16 months in prison: “D’Souza said he knew what he
> did was wrong and illegal and that he deeply regrets it.”
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D61620&title=D%E2%80%99Souza%20Pleads%20Guilty&description=>
>    Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
> chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
>      “Why is public corruption endemic in southeast Los Angeles County?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61618>
>  Posted on May 20, 2014 7:22 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61618> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Important KPCC report<http://www.scpr.org/blogs/politics/2014/05/20/16648/why-is-public-corruption-endemic-in-southeast-los/>.
> Along with the reasons offered, I would suggest that lack of sustained
> investigative press coverage in these smaller cities (which is quite
> expensive) makes a big difference.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D61618&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20is%20public%20corruption%20endemic%20in%20southeast%20Los%20Angeles%20County%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
>    Posted in chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
>      “The Con Job on Voting-Rights Cases: The Obama administration trumps
> up the numbers on voting-rights cases the DOJ has brought. “<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61616>
>  Posted on May 20, 2014 7:18 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61616> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Von Spakovsky and Adams
> <http://www.nationalreview.com/article/378241/con-job-voting-rights-cases-hans-von-spakovsky-j-christian-adams>on
> Politifact
> <http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2014/apr/23/barack-obama/obama-boasts-about-number-voting-rights-cases-take/>and
> Obama<http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/11/remarks-president-national-action-networks-16th-annual-convention>
> .
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D61616&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Con%20Job%20on%20Voting-Rights%20Cases%3A%20The%20Obama%20administration%20trumps%20up%20the%20numbers%20on%20voting-rights%20cases%20the%20DOJ%20has%20brought.%20%E2%80%9C&description=>
>    Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>      “Obama group OFA scales back staffing, fundraising”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61614>
>  Posted on May 20, 2014 7:13 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61614> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> AP reports.<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/obama-group-ofa-scales-back-staffing-fundraising>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D61614&title=%E2%80%9CObama%20group%20OFA%20scales%20back%20staffing%2C%20fundraising%E2%80%9D&description=>
>    Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>      “After Railing Against John Doe Secrecy, WI Club for Growth Fights
> to Keep Docs Secret” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61612>
>  Posted on May 20, 2014 7:11 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61612> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Brendan Fischer blogs<http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/05/12481/after-months-complaining-about-john-does-secrecy-wi-club-growth-fighting-keep>
> .
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D61612&title=%E2%80%9CAfter%20Railing%20Against%20John%20Doe%20Secrecy%2C%20WI%20Club%20for%20Growth%20Fights%20to%20Keep%20Docs%20Secret%E2%80%9D&description=>
>    Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
> chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
>      “A New Light on Public Company Political Spending Disclosure”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61610>
>  Posted on May 20, 2014 7:10 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61610> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Mike Guttentag has posted this draft<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2438078>on SSRN (forthcoming *Columbia
> Business Law Review*). Here is the abstract:
>
> Mandatory disclosure is a central feature of securities regulation in the
> United States, yet there is little agreement regarding precisely how the
> Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) should determine what public
> companies are required to disclose. The current debate about whether the
> SEC should require the disclosure of political spending by public companies
> is but one example of this lack of consensus.
>
> In this Article I first answer the more general question of how to
> evaluate any proposed public company mandatory disclosure requirement. I
> then apply this new evaluation method to the specific question of whether
> public companies should be required to disclose political spending. This
> analysis shows, based, in part, on previously unpublished empirical
> findings, that the evidence does not support requiring public companies to
> disclose political spending.
>
> Mike’s a very smart guy and I’m looking forward to reading this!
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D61610&title=%E2%80%9CA%20New%20Light%20on%20Public%20Company%20Political%20Spending%20Disclosure%E2%80%9D&description=>
>    Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>      “It Helps if You Close Your Eyes: UChicago IOP Video on
> ‘Professionalization of Election Administration’”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61608>
>  Posted on May 20, 2014 7:05 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61608> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> A ChapinVideo<http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/electionacademy/2014/05/it_helps_if_you_close_your_eye.php>
> .
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D61608&title=%E2%80%9CIt%20Helps%20if%20You%20Close%20Your%20Eyes%3A%20UChicago%20IOP%20Video%20on%20%E2%80%98Professionalization%20of%20Election%20Administration%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D&description=>
>    Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
>
> --
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140520/afa0b269/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/20140520/afa0b269/attachment.png>