[EL] ELB News and Commentary 11/14/14
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Thu Nov 13 21:46:24 PST 2014
"California Legislature is looking more moderate due to voting
reforms" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68374>
Posted onNovember 13, 2014 9:41 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68374>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
George
Skelton<http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-cap-moderates-20141113-column.html>LAT
column:
Until last week, no Democratic state legislator running for
reelection had lost to a Republican in 20 years. Then suddenly three
did.
When incumbents start losing their legislative seats, it means
something is happening.
The national Republican wave? Sure. Some of that washed into
California. But it wasn't just that.
Also credit --- or blame --- voter-approved reforms that are
starting to affect California's legislative elections.
I'll be interested to see how social scientists respond to the claims in
this column.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68374&title=%E2%80%9CCalifornia%20Legislature%20is%20looking%20more%20moderate%20due%20to%20voting%20reforms%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incitizen commissions
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=7>,primaries
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>,redistricting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
"Race, Politics and Drawing Maps; The Supreme Court Hears an Alabama
Case on the Voting Rights Act" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68371>
Posted onNovember 13, 2014 9:27 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68371>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT editorial
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/opinion/the-supreme-court-hears-an-alabama-case-on-the-voting-rights-act.html?ref=politics>begins:
As long as politicians are entrusted with drawing legislative maps,
they will use their pen to gain partisan advantage. Courts generally
do not interfere with that process, but there are limits to this
where race is involved. The problem is figuring out which motive
<http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/01/race-or-party-how-courts-should-think-about-republican-efforts-to-make-it-harder-to-vote-in-north-carolina-and-elsewhere/> ---
race or partisanship --- underlies the redistricting. On Wednesday,
the Supreme Court considered
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/us/justices-hear-black-lawmakers-challenge-to-alabama-redistricting.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news> this
issue in a thorny case that could have significant implications for
the future of the Voting Rights Act.
It concludes:
A purpose of the voting rights law was to preserve the voting power
of minority groups in different ways depending on local conditions.
This kind of rigid redistricting isolates minority voters and limits
their political power. It is up to the justices to reaffirm the law
and, as the election-law scholar Justin Levitt has written, to stop
lawmakers from turning "a refined and sophisticated piece of federal
legislation into a cartoon."
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68371&title=%E2%80%9CRace%2C%20Politics%20and%20Drawing%20Maps%3B%20The%20Supreme%20Court%20Hears%20an%20Alabama%20Case%20on%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
"Governing and Deciding Who Governs"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68369>
Posted onNovember 13, 2014 8:14 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68369>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Josh Chafetz has postedthis
draft<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2522906>on SSRN
(forthcoming, /University of Chicago Legal Forum/). Here is the abstract:
In /McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission/, Chief Justice
Roberts wrote that, "Campaign finance restrictions that pursue other
objectives [than eradicating /quid pro quo/ corruption or its
appearance], we have explained, impermissibly inject the Government
'into the debate over who should govern.' And those who govern
should be the /last/ people to help decide who /should/ govern."
This passage sounds great --- after all, who could object to an
attempt to purge official self-dealing, especially in the
election-law context? And therein lies its insidiousness: this
rousing language masks a programmatic attempt by Roberts and his
colleagues to distance themselves rhetorically from the structures
and processes of governance and thereby to justify their privileged
place above the other branches with regard to such issues.
This essay, written for the /University of Chicago Legal Forum/'s
2014 "Does Election Law Serve the Electorate?" symposium, identifies
and unpacks two distinct distancing strategies exemplified in that
passage. First, the Court's use of the first-person plural ("we have
explained") posits a trans-temporal unified identity for the Court,
which is implicitly contrasted with the shifts and vagaries of mere
electoral politics. Part I examines this judicial self-presentation
by contrasting the treatment of corruption in /Caperton/, on the one
hand, and /Citizens United/ and /McCutcheon/, on the other. Second,
Roberts's implicit contrasting of the Court with "those who govern"
serves to suggest that the Court is somehow removed from the arena
of partisan politics. Part II discusses this claim with reference
to/Bush v. Gore/, /Shelby County/, and election-law disputes
surrounding the 2014 midterms.
The conclusion will consider what these rhetorical distancing
strategies get the Court, and what a critical evaluation of them
gets us.
I heard this paper presented last week and it sounds terrific. I can't
wait to read it!
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68369&title=%E2%80%9CGoverning%20and%20Deciding%20Who%20Governs%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
"Liberal Donors Looking 6 Years Ahead"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68367>
Posted onNovember 13, 2014 5:26 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68367>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Nick
Confessore<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/us/politics/shaking-off-midterm-drubbing-liberal-donors-look-6-years-ahead.html?ref=politics&_r=0>in
the NYT on the Democracy Alliance meeting.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68367&title=%E2%80%9CLiberal%20Donors%20Looking%206%20Years%20Ahead%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
"Outside Spending Didn't Buy The Election"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68365>
Posted onNovember 13, 2014 3:47 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68365>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Sabato's Crystal Ball
<http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/14-from-14-quick-takes-on-the-midterm/>:
6. Outside groups didn't buy the election
/Crystal Ball/ Senior Columnist Alan Abramowitz ran a regression
analysis to see what effect outside spending had on the Senate
races. The correlation between the Democratic and Republican outside
spending difference and the Democratic margin was .23, which is not
statistically significant. In contrast, the correlation between the
Democratic margin and incumbency status was a more significant .76,
and the correlation between the Democratic Senate margin in 2014 and
the Democratic presidential vote margin in 2012 was an even more
significant .89.
In other words, partisanship in a polarized era, represented by the
'12 presidential vote margin, was by far the strongest predictor of
2014's Senate vote. Naturally, incumbency status is also
significant. But the difference between amounts of outside spending
by groups affiliated with both parties has surprisingly little
effect, perhaps because both sides spent so much that the money from
Republicans neutralized the cash from Democrats, and vice versa.
(h/tPolitical Wire
<http://politicalwire.com/2014/11/13/outside-spending-didnt-buy-the-election/>)
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68365&title=%E2%80%9COutside%20Spending%20Didn%E2%80%99t%20Buy%20The%20Election%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
Is Justice Thomas Gently Chiding CJ Roberts and J. Alito on Same Sex
Marriage Cases? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68362>
Posted onNovember 13, 2014 1:48 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68362>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Important Josh Blackman post.
<http://joshblackman.com/blog/2014/11/13/thomas-weighs-in-on-denial-of-stays-in-ssm-cases-our-recent-practice-however-gives-me-little-reason-to-be-optimistic/> "Thomas
Weighs In On Denial Of Stays in SSM Cases: 'Our recent practice,
however, gives me little reason to be optimistic.'"Justic
So this suggests that Scalia and Thomas have been voting to hear the
same sex marriage cases, but they are not being joined by (most likely)
Alito and Roberts.
Here's whatI wrote last year<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57627>(in
what has proven to be partially wrong, or premature), about why I
expected a cert. grant in the same sex marriage cases:
It takes only four votes to grant a cert. petition, and it is hard
for me to imagine Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito not wanting to
take one of the cases coming up, such as the Utah case
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/appeals-court-refuses-to-halt-utah-marriages-for-same-sex-co>,
in which a federal court held that the state's ban on same-sex
marriage violates both equal protection and due process guarantees,
or the Ohio case
<http://www.volokh.com/2013/12/23/limited-nature-ohio-sex-marriage-decision/>,
where a federal judge indicated he's quite likely to reach that same
result as to Ohio's law. If lower courts are going to start siding
with same-sex marriage proponents, and start legalizing same-sex
marriage as a result of court order in places such as conservative
Utah, then it seems hard to imagine Scalia, Thomas, and Alito not
urging the Court to take the case.
So where's the fourth vote? I think Adam is right that Kennedy
would rather let the issue percolate for a while (witness his
convoluted opinion in /Windsor/
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/windsor-v-united-states-2/>not
addressing the issue more straightforwardly). But Chief Justice
Roberts is a different story. He appears in /Windsor/ to oppose
judicial imposition of same sex marriage. That's where his
sympathies are. The question is whether he pulls the trigger or not
and votes to take one of these cases. Strategically, he could decide
it is better not to vote to take the cases if he thinks, as many
thoughtful observers do, that if Kennedy had to decide the issue, he
would side with the right to same-sex marriage.
But that same strategic calculation which might lead the Chief not
to vote to grant cert. could lead one of the four Court liberals to
vote to take the case. That is, they too may want to force Kennedy's
hand, if they are confident in his vote. If it only takes one of
the four to join in a vote for cert., I think it is pretty likely to
happen. The way it might not happen happen is if Alito, Scalia and
Thomas all decide to vote strategically not to hear these cases.
I'm guessing they won't be able to resist.
Of course, with the new Sixth Circuit opinion creating a Circuit split,
I think it inevitable the Court will take up the issue very soon.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68362&title=Is%20Justice%20Thomas%20Gently%20Chiding%20CJ%20Roberts%20and%20J.%20Alito%20on%20Same%20Sex%20Marriage%20Cases%3F&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
"Most Americans Support Giving Congress More Power To Limit Campaign
Spending" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68360>
Posted onNovember 13, 2014 1:22 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68360>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
HuffPo:
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/13/campaign-finance-poll_n_6153630.html?1415910964>"Most
Americans say they think the billions of dollars spent on campaigns
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/12/2014-election-big-business_n_6135914.html> affected
the outcomes of the 2014 elections, and they support changing the
Constitution to allow for more limits on spending, according to a new
HuffPost/YouGov poll
<https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/11/11/poll-results-spending/>."
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68360&title=%E2%80%9CMost%20Americans%20Support%20Giving%20Congress%20More%20Power%20To%20Limit%20Campaign%20Spending%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
"Longtime Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship indicted"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68358>
Posted onNovember 13, 2014 1:19 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68358>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
He <http://www.wvgazette.com/article/20141113/GZ01/141119629/1104>,
ofCaperton v. Massey
<http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12433246201492395798&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68358&title=%E2%80%9CLongtime%20Massey%20Energy%20CEO%20Don%20Blankenship%20indicted%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted injudicial elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
"Podcast: The Supreme Court considers racial gerrymandering"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68356>
Posted onNovember 13, 2014 1:18 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68356>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
National Constitution Center
<http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/11/podcast-the-supreme-court-considers-racial-gerrymandering/>:
Rick Hasen from the UC-Irvine School of Law and Roger Clegg from the
Center for Equal Opportunity join our Jeffrey Rosen to discuss one
of the biggest Supreme Court cases this term, about the roles of
race and party in determining election districts.
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two
combined cases from Alabama that asked the Justices to parse out the
process of gerrymandering.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68356&title=%E2%80%9CPodcast%3A%20The%20Supreme%20Court%20considers%20racial%20gerrymandering%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
Wow, NOM Urging KS Governor to Ignore Order of Federal Court on Same
Sex Marriage <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68354>
Posted onNovember 13, 2014 12:56 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68354>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Chris Geidner
<https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/532999384469098496>has the
press release. This is quite an escalation toward civil disobedience.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68354&title=Wow%2C%20NOM%20Urging%20KS%20Governor%20to%20Ignore%20Order%20of%20Federal%20Court%20on%20Same%20Sex%20Marriage&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
"Loretta Lynch on Voting Rights, Terror Trials and the Press"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68352>
Posted onNovember 13, 2014 12:42 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68352>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Mike Sacks for BLT
<http://www.nationallawjournal.com/legaltimes/id=1202676333213/Loretta-Lynch-on-Voting-Rights-Terror-Trials-and-the-Press?cmp=share_twitter&slreturn=20141013153532>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68352&title=%E2%80%9CLoretta%20Lynch%20on%20Voting%20Rights%2C%20Terror%20Trials%20and%20the%20Press%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inDepartment of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>,The
Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
"Voting rights battles will continue before 2016?
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68350>
Posted onNovember 13, 2014 12:24 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68350>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
USA Today:
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/13/voting-rights-legal-challenge/18955055/>"Supreme
Court rulings forced last-minute changes in state voting procedures for
the midterm elections across the country, but the battle over voting
rules is far from over. Courts are still hearing arguments over voter ID
and early voting laws, legal challenges that could reshuffle voting
rules again before 2016, when a presidential election will probably
increase voter turnout and long lines at polls."
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68350&title=%E2%80%9CVoting%20rights%20battles%20will%20continue%20before%202016%E2%80%B3&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
"After takeover, Nevada GOPers ready voter ID"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68348>
Posted onNovember 13, 2014 10:36 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68348>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
MSNBC
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/after-takeover-nevada-gopers-ready-voter-id>: "Yet
another Republican-controlled state is looking to impose a voter ID law
just in time for the 2016 elections. GOP state lawmakers in Nevada are
readying ID bills for early next year, Secretary of State-Elect Barbara
Cegavske told msnbc in an interview. Cegavske said she knew of two
separate bills that might end up being merged together."
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68348&title=%E2%80%9CAfter%20takeover%2C%20Nevada%20GOPers%20ready%20voter%20ID%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
"News Analysis: The kids are alright Millennials stayed away, but
young people worked hard Nov. 4? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68346>
Posted onNovember 13, 2014 10:33 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68346>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
That's the lead story
<http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly>in this
week's Electionline Weekly.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68346&title=%E2%80%9CNews%20Analysis%3A%20The%20kids%20are%20alright%20Millennials%20stayed%20away%2C%20but%20young%20people%20worked%20hard%20Nov.%204%E2%80%B3&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
"Behind the Ballot Box: How Do You Run an Election When the Rules
Keep Changing?" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68344>
Posted onNovember 13, 2014 10:33 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68344>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Extensive Abby Rapoport
report<http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-epic-2014-frenzy-voters-never-saw-20141107>in
the National Journal on litigation just before the election, some of
which made it to the Supreme court.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D68344&title=%E2%80%9CBehind%20the%20Ballot%20Box%3A%20How%20Do%20You%20Run%20an%20Election%20When%20the%20Rules%20Keep%20Changing%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
--
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/20141113/1e15de2c/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/20141113/1e15de2c/attachment.png>
View list directory