[EL] buying candidates?

[Thomas J. Cares]

But then how do we address the problem of those impoverished miscreants,
who don't bank, drive, or vacation abroad, potentially acquiring political
clout?


On Saturday, November 1, 2014, Fredric Woocher <fwoocher at strumwooch.com>
wrote:

>  Sean,
>
>  I am curious why you do not apply the same analysis regarding the
> minuscule gain versus the substantial cost of your voting twice to your
> analysis of the need for voter i.d. laws.  Do you believe that the people
> who are supposedly prevented from voting illegally by such laws have more
> to gain or less to lose from voting one illegal ballot than you do from
> voting twice?  Would it not seem that the miniscule gain and substantial
> cost of voting illegally is a sufficient deterrent against such conduct,
> such that the risk of disenfranchising legitimate voters who cannot obtain
> i.d.s or otherwise have difficulty in complying with these requirements
> outweighs any miniscule benefits that they are likely to produce in
> preventing illegal votes?
>
>  Fredric D. Woocher
>
> Sent from my IPad
>
> On Nov 1, 2014, at 2:58 PM, "Sean Parnell" <
> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sean at impactpolicymanagement.com');>> wrote:
>
>   Robert: I’d be happy to keep the purchase of votes part of the
> discussion. Of course, there can’t be a purchase without a seller, so let’s
> begin the discussion there.
>
>
>
> One key element of markets, for example, is price, which generally occurs
> at the intersection of the supply and demand curves. Tell me, Robert, how
> much do you sell yours for? Or what price are you willing to pay for mine?
> Or what price do you think anyone sells theirs for?
>
>
>
> Let’s discuss my personal supply curve for votes, since we’re talking
> about the purchase of votes and my own supply curve is really the only one
> I can talk about with any real knowledge.
>
>
>
> As a producer of votes, I’m willing to provide as many votes as I can up
> to a point where the marginal gain of another vote meets or exceeds the
> marginal cost (or expected marginal gain meets expected marginal costs, if
> you prefer) that vote. At the point where the expected marginal cost of
> producing one additional vote exceeds the expected marginal gain, I will
> cease production of votes.
>
>
>
> In my case the number of votes I, personally, am willing to provide is 1,
> at least per election, per candidate. The cost to me to produce this vote
> is rather negligible – perhaps $0.50 or so in gas, another $0.10 or so in
> depreciation on my vehicle, depending on how long the wait in line is
> perhaps $100 or $200 in forgone income. On the other side of the ledger are
> my expected gains, which include the psychic income from the feeling of
> having done my civic duty, the value to me of not running the risk of
> showing up on some creepy politician’s list of people who haven’t done
> their civic duty (see this for what I’m talking about:
> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/10/dems-keep-it-creepy.php),
> plus financial benefits that may accrue to me from elected officials
> adopting policies I favor (this is a triple probability function, of course
> – the probability that my vote might make the difference in an election
> times the probability the elected official will keep their word times the
> probability my favored policies will result in the outcome I believe it
> will times the net-present value of those financial benefits), plus
> non-financial benefits that may accrue to me (again a triple probability
> function, substitute psychic income values for the financial benefit values
> in the previous calculation).
>
>
>
> That last bit about the value of financial and non-financial value is more
> complicated than what I just outlined, of course – the value of the benefit
> to me must be compared to the lesser or possibly even negative financial
> result that might occur should things go the other way. But to provide a
> simple illustration of what I’m talking about, on the financial side I may
> benefit from an increase in the Child Tax Credit if that is what the
> candidate I vote for pledges, on the non-financial side I may benefit from
> not being locked up for dissenting from government approved orthodoxy if
> the candidate I vote for opposes ‘truth in politics’ laws.
>
>
>
> As for why I’m only willing to produce a single vote for a candidate, the
> fact is that the gross marginal value of that second vote is vanishingly
> small (because the probability that my second vote will make the difference
> in an election is near-zero), while the costs of that second vote are
> significant. For starters, I lose the psychic income from performing my
> civic duty and in fact incur psychic costs, because I’m now doing the
> opposite of my civic duty. On top of that, if I am caught (another
> probability calculation) then I face a variety of legal sanctions, which to
> me seem a very high cost indeed. Comparing the miniscule gain to the
> substantial cost, the rational decision to me is to only produce a single
> vote.
>
>
>
> This is just the start of the discussion, of course. All I’ve provided
> here is the maximum number of votes I am willing to provide as a seller of
> votes. To begin with, there’s still a product differentiation issue (i.e.
> which candidate will I sell my vote to) which is simply which candidate
> offers the greatest net gain to me, once both the financial and
> non-financial gains are summed. Perhaps the next round we’ll address this?
>
>
>
> Anyways, these are just some opening thoughts on the sale and purchase of
> votes, of course. Your thoughts, Robert? Or have I misunderstood you, and
> you don’t *really* mean the actual purchase of votes, instead it’s simply
> some sort of silly euphemism tossed about by ‘reformers’ who wish to imply
> illegality and nefarious undertakings when discussing the ability of
> persons to attempt to *persuade* voters to support certain candidates and
> policies? If that’s the case, we probably ought to drop the whole “purchase
> of votes” meme, since it’s obviously not really applicable, and instead you
> ought to whine about the simple *unfairness* of the fact that some people
> are more persuasive than others, or that people you disagree with are
> occasionally more persuasive than those you agree with, or whatever your
> real issue is.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Sean Parnell
>
> President
>
> Impact Policy Management, LLC
>
> 6411 Caleb Court
>
> Alexandria, VA  22315
>
> 571-289-1374 (c)
>
> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sean at impactpolicymanagement.com');>
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu');>
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu');>]
> *On Behalf Of *Robert Wechsler
> *Sent:* Friday, October 31, 2014 5:36 PM
> *To:* Benjamin Barr
> *Cc:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','law-election at department-lists.uci.edu');>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] buying candidates?
>
>
>
> *We don't feel guilty or ashamed that we've made money in free market. *
>
> This isn't about making money in a free market. It is about spending money
> in a market that is not free: the election of those who manage our
> communities. If this market were free, then people could buy each other's
> votes. If you are unflinching in your inclination toward liberty, how can
> you oppose the purchasing of votes?
>
> I would like to see the purchase of votes be part of the discussion. After
> all, that's really what the discussion is about.
>
> Robert Wechsler
> City Ethics
>
>  On 10/31/2014 4:54 PM, Benjamin Barr wrote:
>
>  Professor,
>
>
>
> Some of us are stricken with an unflinching inclination toward liberty.
> We'd prefer that a free people be able to speak as they see fit, pool their
> resources together as they'd like, associate in commonality as they enjoy,
> and otherwise engage in the American experiment.
>
>
>
> We don't feel guilty or ashamed that we've made money in free market.  We
> welcome the Steyers, Kochs, and Soros of the world to compete for our
> attention and shake up the public mind.  We aren't afraid of their ideas.
> We welcome unions, corporations, trial attorneys, and coal producers to
> share their thoughts, even when they use silly names.  We believe in free
> exchange and citizens capable of self-government.
>
>
>
> We also realize that the surest path to tyranny is found in displacing
> this precious liberty held by Americans with the unilateral voice of
> government to decide who has "political power or who gets elected."
>
>
>
> Forward, and a Happy Halloween to all!
>
>
>
> Benjamin Barr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Schultz, David A. <dschultz at hamline.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dschultz at hamline.edu');>> wrote:
>
> I will chime in late on this debate since I was working.
>
> The  difficulty of us to really draw the lines between permissible use of
> money to influence candidates or races and impermissible uses (buying
> candidates or bribery) might suggest  that it is impossible to do so
> because it may be a distinction without a difference.  This may thus speak
> to the core issue that I repeatedly bring up but which most of you chose to
> simply ignore:  i.e., perhaps it is not legitimate for  people to use money
> or convert over economic resources into political resources or perhaps it
> is simply not legitimate to make money the allocative factor that
> determines who has political power or who gets elected.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','rhasen at law.uci.edu');>> wrote:
>
> I have changed this subject heading to something more descriptive.
>
> On 10/31/14, 11:25 AM, Benjamin Barr wrote:
>
>  Brad's on to something here.
>
>
>
> There's an awful example of this going on in Texas right now (and
> something I'm working on with the Wyoming Liberty Group folks).  The case
> is Cary v. Texas and is in the Fifth District appellate court.  It involves
> a crew of people who improperly funded a judicial campaign.  But instead of
> having the state slap them with violations of its Election Code and
> Judicial Campaign Fairness Act, they're going after one of the funders
> under criminal bribery, "organized crime," and Texas' favorite money
> laundering laws to pursue 14 years of jail for him.
>
>
>
> Prosecutors there believe you can sidestep the state's campaign finance
> laws because the giving of money to "run for office" and "continue to run
> for office" constitutes bribery and organized criminal activity in their
> eyes.  It's worth pausing to read that again.  Make one mistake in how you
> decide to fund a candidate for office and you're not dealing with campaign
> finance violations (pesky in and of themselves); you're facing 14 years in
> the slammer.
>
>
>
> There's a careful sort of delineation, constitutionally mandated, in
> nearly every state's bundle of anti-corruption laws.  Bribery and criminal
> offenses are the proverbial jackhammers here.  They prevent immediate *quid
> pro quo* arrangements and include pesky things like heightened
> evidentiary standards and burdens of proof that some prosecutors don't like
> very much.  Campaign finance laws, aimed at preventing future *quid pro
> quo* arrangements and serving limited informational interests, regulate
> with much more precision and more lightly given the important First
> Amendment interests at stake.
>
>
>
> It's time to get over the notion that Americans coming together to support
> policies and politicians they prefer are engaged in criminal activity.  Its
> destroying real people who get caught up in this nonsense.
>
>
>
> Forward,
>
>
>
> Benjamin Barr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','BSmith at law.capital.edu');>> wrote:
>
> So Democrat Jones announces he is running for Senate, and states plainly,
> "I don't agree with most of my party on campaign finance reform. I oppose
> amending the constitution, and I oppose the DISCLOSE Act." Larry Lessig
> says, "This will hurt Jones in getting the Democratic nomination. Mayday
> PAC will support Jones' opponent."
>
>
>
> That's "buy[ing] the candidate's policy decisions"?
>
>
>
> Isn't that more accurately called "opposing a candidate you disagree
> with"?
>
>
>
> "Right to Life will oppose candidates who support abortion rights. Support
> for abortion rights will hurt a candidate in Republican primaries." That's
> bribery?
>
>
>
> *Bradley A. Smith*
>
> *Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault*
>
> *   Professor of Law*
>
> *Capital University Law School*
>
> *303 E. Broad St.*
>
> *Columbus, OH 43215*
>
> *614.236.6317 <614.236.6317>*
>
> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
> <http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx>*
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Tyler Creighton [tyler at rethinkmedia.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tyler at rethinkmedia.org');>]
> *Sent:* Friday, October 31, 2014 11:03 AM
> *To:* Svoboda, Brian (Perkins Coie)
> *Cc:* Smith, Brad; law-election at UCI.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','law-election at UCI.edu');>
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] more news 10/30/14
>
>
>
> To acquire candidate Smith's silence or opposition to the carbon tax by
> paying for ads supporting candidate Smith or by promising to pay for ads
> attacking him.
>
>
>   *Tyler Creighton* | tyler at rethinkmedia.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tyler at rethinkmedia.org');>  |  Media
> Associate
>
> ReThink Media <http://rethinkmedia.org> | (202) 449-6960 office | (925)
> 548-2189 <%28925%29%20548-2189> mobile
>
> @ReThinkDemocrcy <https://twitter.com/rethinkdemocrcy> | @ReThink_Media
> <https://twitter.com/rethink_media> | @TylerCreighton
> <http://www.twitter.com/tylercreighton>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Svoboda, Brian (Perkins Coie) <
> BSvoboda at perkinscoie.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','BSvoboda at perkinscoie.com');>> wrote:
>
> The universal unconscious scores again, because this discussion comes
> while I am reading Dan Lowenstein’s “When Is a Campaign Contribution a
> Bribe?”, republished in Heffernan and Kleinig’s Private and Public
> Corruption. It seems to me that Professor Lowenstein’s five hypotheticals
> would provide a useful framework for this debate. Perhaps the listserv’s
> monthly robo email could include a hyperlink to Professor Lowenstein’s
> article, which never seems to go out of season.
>
>
>
> =B.
>
>
>
> *Brian Svoboda** | **Perkins Coie LLP*
>
> *PARTNER*
>
> 700 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Suite 600
>
> Washington, DC 20005-3960
>
> D. +1.202.434.1654
>
> F. +1.202.654.9150
>
> E. BSvoboda at perkinscoie.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','+BSvoboda at perkinscoie.com');>
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu');>
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu');>]
> *On Behalf Of *Smith, Brad
> *Sent:* Friday, October 31, 2014 9:46 AM
> *To:* Tyler Creighton
> *Cc:* law-election at UCI.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','law-election at UCI.edu');>
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] more news 10/30/14
>
>
>
> You have a curious interpretation of "buy."
>
>
>
> You seem to be exactly the kind of person I was referring to.
>
>
>
> *Bradley A. Smith*
>
> *Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault*
>
> *   Professor of Law*
>
> *Capital University Law School*
>
> *303 E. Broad St.*
>
> *Columbus, OH 43215*
>
> *614.236.6317 <614.236.6317>*
>
> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
> <http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx>*
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Tyler Creighton [tyler at rethinkmedia.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tyler at rethinkmedia.org');>]
> *Sent:* Friday, October 31, 2014 7:28 AM
> *To:* Smith, Brad
> *Cc:* Reuben, Richard C.; Rick Hasen; law-election at UCI.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','law-election at UCI.edu');>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] more news 10/30/14
>
> The President of AFP seems to confirm that big spending for a candidate
> (or the threat of big spending against a candidate) is in fact to buy the
> candidate's policy decisions.
>
>
>
> In NYT today
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/us/why-republicans-keep-telling-everyone-theyre-not-scientists.html?ref=todayspaper%20>
> :
>
>
>
> Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, said his group
> intends to aggressively work against Republicans who support a carbon tax
> or regulations in the 2016 presidential primary campaigns. “They would be
> at a severe disadvantage in the Republican nomination process,” Mr.
> Phillips said. “We would absolutely make that a crucial issue.”
>
>
>   *Tyler Creighton* | tyler at rethinkmedia.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tyler at rethinkmedia.org');>  |  Media
> Associate
>
> ReThink Media <http://rethinkmedia.org> | (202) 449-6960
> <%28202%29%20449-6960> office | (925) 548-2189 mobile
>
> @ReThinkDemocrcy <https://twitter.com/rethinkdemocrcy> | @ReThink_Media
> <https://twitter.com/rethink_media> | @TylerCreighton
> <http://www.twitter.com/tylercreighton>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','BSmith at law.capital.edu');>> wrote:
>
> This actually strikes me as pretty tame compared to what I've seen, so
> maybe the future is now.
>
>
>
> But it is a shame that over the years so many have labored so hard to
> convince Americans that if someone contributes to an officeholder's
> campaign, it is proof that the officeholder is bought and that the
> officeholder's decisions are not based on the merits, the officeholder's
> ideology, or the perceived desires of constituents, but simply the wishes
> of donors.
>
>
>
> *Bradley A. Smith*
>
> *Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault*
>
> *   Professor of Law*
>
> *Capital University Law School*
>
> *303 E. Broad St.*
>
> *Columbus, OH 43215*
>
> *614.236.6317 <614.236.6317>*
>
> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
> <http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx>*
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu');>
> [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu');>]
> on behalf of Reuben, Richard C. [ReubenR at missouri.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ReubenR at missouri.edu');>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 30, 2014 4:31 PM
> *To:* 'Rick Hasen'; 'law-election at UCI.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','law-election at UCI.edu');>'
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] more news 10/30/14
>
> Apologies if this
> <http://www.iagreetosee.com/portfolio/republicans-spending-oust-groovy-judge-pat-joyce/?utm_expid=75724171-4.BszejjW6RMeHyvjzhd7TGw.0&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CCcQFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.iagreetosee.com%252Fportfolio%252Frepublicans-spending-oust-groovy-judge-pat-joyce%252F%26ei%3DRZ9SVJq3JtX_yQSUw4DgBQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNF-VgTyYb_g2mLuoL36cxqDZUb2Pw%26sig2%3DQLsHDOuK-t-67ruAQca8wA%26bvm%3Dbv.78597519%2Cd.aWw?&version=a>
> has already been posted, but I thought you might like to see the future of
> judicial campaigns, as played out today in a judicial election in Cole
> County, Mo. This one is obviously very ugly, and there is still time yet
> before the election.
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu');>
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu');>]
> *On Behalf Of *Rick Hasen
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 30, 2014 2:57 PM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','law-election at UCI.edu');>
> *Subject:* [EL] more news 10/30/14
>
>
> “Messing With Texas Again: Putting It Back Under Federal Supervision”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67669>
>
> Posted on October 30, 2014 12:40 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67669>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I have written this piece
> <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/messing-with-texas-voter-id>for TPM
> Cafe. It begins:
>
>  *Readers of the entire 147-page opinion
> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141009-TXID-Opinion.pdf> issued
> earlier this month by a federal district court striking down Texas’s strict
> voter identification law as unconstitutional and a violation of the Voting
> Rights Act might have been too exhausted to realize that the opinion’s very
> last sentence may be its most important. The court ended its opinion with a
> dry statement promising a future hearing on “plaintiffs’ request for relief
> under Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act.” That hearing, however, has
> the potential to require Texas to get federal approval for any future
> voting changes for up to the next decade, and to make it much more
> difficult for the state to pass more restrictive voting rules. It may be
> much more important than the ruling on the voter ID law itself.*
>
>   <image001.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D67669&title=%E2%80%9CMessing%20With%20Texas%20Again%3A%20Putting%20It%20Back%20Under%20Federal%20Supervision%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>, Voting Rights Act
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>  “McDonnell team sought mistrial over juror’s ouster, expressed concern
> about alternate” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67667>
>
> Posted on October 30, 2014 12:30 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67667>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> WaPo reports.
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/mcdonnell-team-sought-mistrial-over-jurors-ouster-expressed-concern-about-alternate/2014/10/30/d3f3d1c2-6053-11e4-8b9e-2ccdac31a031_story.html>
>
> <image001.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D67667&title=%E2%80%9CMcDonnell%20team%20sought%20mistrial%20over%20juror%E2%80%99s%20ouster%2C%20expressed%20concern%20about%20alternate%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in bribery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>
>  “Ginsburg Was Right: Texas’ Extreme Voter ID Law Is Stopping People From
> Voting” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67665>
>
> Posted on October 30, 2014 12:24 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67665>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> HuffPo reports.
> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/30/texas-voter-id_n_6076536.html?utm_hp_ref=tw>
>
> <image001.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D67665&title=%E2%80%9CGinsburg%20Was%20Right%3A%20Texas%E2%80%99%20Extreme%20Voter%20ID%20Law%20Is%20Stopping%20People%20From%20Voting%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>, Voting Rights Act
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>  “50,000 Missing Georgia Voter-Registration Applications? Nothing to See
> Here” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67663>
>
> Posted on October 30, 2014 12:20 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67663>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The *Daily Beast* reports.
> <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/30/50-000-missing-georgia-voter-registration-applications-nothing-to-see-here.html?via=desktop&source=twitter>
>
> <image001.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D67663&title=%E2%80%9C50%2C000%20Missing%20Georgia%20Voter-Registration%20Applications%3F%20Nothing%20to%20See%20Here%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter registration
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>
>  “Argument preview: Racial gerrymandering, partisan politics, and the
> future of the Voting Rights Act” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67661>
>
> Posted on October 30, 2014 12:07 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67661>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I have written an extensive preview for SCOTUSBlog
> <http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/argument-preview-racial-gerrymandering-partisan-politics-and-the-future-of-the-voting-rights-act/> of
> a pair of cases the Supreme Court will hear at a November 12 oral argument.
> The issues are complex but very important and I’ve tried to lay it out so
> that someone not in the election law field can understand what’s at stake.
> The preview begins:
>
>  *The Supreme Court has long ignored Justice Felix Frankfurter’s warning
> to stay out of the political thicket. It regularly hears challenges
> <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/perry-v-perez/> to redistricting
> cases
> <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/arizona-state-legislature-v-arizona-independent-redistricting-commission/?wpmp_switcher=desktop> (not
> to mention lots
> <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mccutcheon-v-federal-election-commission/> of
> other types
> <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/crawford-v-marion-county-election-bd/> of election
> <http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Roberts-order-Lux-9-30-101.pdf> cases
> <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/susan-b-anthony-list-v-driehaus/>),
> raising issues from the one-person, one-vote
> <http://electionlawblog.org/archives/001449.html> rule to vote dilution
> <http://www.scotusblog.com/2006/06/comments-on-lulac-v-perry/> under the
> Voting Rights Act, to racial
> <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_357> and partisan
> <http://www.scotusblog.com/2006/06/texas-redistricting-counting-the-votes/> gerrymandering
> claims. The Court’s decision to hear a part of a challenge to Alabama’s
> state legislative redistricting plan enacted after the 2010 census
> (in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama
> <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/alabama-legislative-black-caucus-v-alabama/> and Alabama
> Democratic Conference v. Alabama
> <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/alabama-democratic-conference-v-alabama/>,
> set for argument on November 12) brings all of these issues together in a
> seemingly technical but high-stakes case, showing the artificiality of
> separating issues of race and party in redistricting, offering a bold role
> reversal in political parties’ use of racial gerrymandering claims, and
> offering a surprising new threat to the constitutionality of the Voting
> Rights Act.*
>
>
>
> <image001.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D67661&title=%E2%80%9CArgument%20preview%3A%20Racial%20gerrymandering%2C%20partisan%20politics%2C%20and%20the%20future%20of%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>  “State election officials opt to delay election in Bobby Harrell’s old
> House seat” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67659>
>
> Posted on October 30, 2014 10:06 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67659>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Following up on this post <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67649>, the
> South Carolina state election board is delaying the election
> <http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20141030/PC1603/141039960?fb_comment_id=fbc_521814574587702_521834871252339_521834871252339#f35ae82f9c> and
> Democrats intend to appeal to the state Supreme Court.
>
> <image001.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D67659&title=%E2%80%9CState%20election%20officials%20opt%20to%20delay%20election%20in%20Bobby%20Harrell%E2%80%99s%20old%20House%20seat%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
>  “In Michigan, Spending Big Money to Stop Big Money”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67657>
>
> Posted on October 30, 2014 9:45 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67657>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NYT First Draft
> <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2014/10/30/?entry=3977&_php=true&_type=blogs&smid=tw-share>:
> “Now, with Election Day nearing, Mayday is pinning its hopes on Michigan’s
> Sixth Congressional District, where Representative Fred Upton, a Republican
> who is the chairman of the influential Energy and Commerce Committee and
> was once deemed a safe incumbent, is facing an unexpectedly strong
> challenge from Paul Clements, a Democrat. In a race that was on no one’s
> radar a month ago, Mayday is now the biggest outside spender.”
>
> <image001.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D67657&title=%E2%80%9CIn%20Michigan%2C%20Spending%20Big%20Money%20to%20Stop%20Big%20Money%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>  “Horse. Stable Door. Too Late” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67655>
>
> Posted on October 30, 2014 9:24 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67655>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Paul Gronke
> <http://blogs.reed.edu/earlyvoting/commentary/non-citizen-voting-and-why-political-scientists-who-are-publicly-engaged-may-need-an-editor/> on
> the non-citizen voting controversy and Jesse Richman’s most recent comments
> on it which try to pull back from some of its bolder claims.
>
> <image001.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D67655&title=%E2%80%9CHorse.%20Stable%20Door.%20Too%20Late%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>  “CFI Releases Analysis of Money in State Elections”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67653>
>
> Posted on October 30, 2014 9:07 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67653>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> New release
> <http://cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/14-10-30/CFI_Releases_Analysis_of_Money_in_State_Elections.aspx>,
> with these subheads:
>
>  *Nearly Two-Thirds of the Candidates’ 2012 Money in the Median State
> Came from PACs or from $1,000+ Donors; Small Donors Gave 16%*
>
> *Less than 1% of Adults in the Median State Gave any Money at All to a
> Candidate for State Office*
>
>   <image001.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D67653&title=%E2%80%9CCFI%20Releases%20Analysis%20of%20Money%20in%20State%20Elections%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>  Lava! <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67651>
>
> Posted on October 30, 2014 9:05 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67651>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> and other things that can mess up an election administrator’s election
> day, via Electionline Weekly.
> <http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly>
>
> <image001.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D67651&title=Lava%21&description=>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
>  Fight in South Carolina Over Replacing Resigning House Speaker on Ballot
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67649>
>
> Posted on  <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67649>
>
>

--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141102/c6d8079a/attachment.html>