[EL] WI/NC and more

Mon Oct 6 13:45:12 PDT 2014

    Breaking: 7th Circuit Issues Opinion on the Merits in WI Voter ID
    Case <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66407>

Posted onOctober 6, 2014 1:42 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66407>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

You can read the23-page opinion 
<http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/Seventh%20Circuit%20voter%20ID%20ruling.pdf>. 
Given that Wisconsin's response at the Supreme Court on the motion for a 
stay is not due until tomorrow at 5, this is a nice assist from the 7th 
Circuit panel to the state of Wisconsin.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66407&title=Breaking%3A%207th%20Circuit%20Issues%20Opinion%20on%20the%20Merits%20in%20WI%20Voter%20ID%20Case&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>

    North Carolina Files #SCOTUS Reply in Voting Case: Decision Can Come
    at Any Time <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66404>

Posted onOctober 6, 2014 1:25 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66404>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Read the letter 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/nc-reply.pdf>.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66404&title=North%20Carolina%20Files%20%23SCOTUS%20Reply%20in%20Voting%20Case%3A%20Decision%20Can%20Come%20at%20Any%20Time&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting Wars 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

    "A Comparison of North Carolina and Ohio (and Wisconsin)"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66402>

Posted onOctober 6, 2014 12:57 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66402>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Ned Foley blogs. 
<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/election-law/article/?article=12957>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66402&title=%E2%80%9CA%20Comparison%20of%20North%20Carolina%20and%20Ohio%20%28and%20Wisconsin%29%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting Wars 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

    #SCOTUS Communications Problem Today Highlights Transparency Issues
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66399>

Posted onOctober 6, 2014 9:28 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66399>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

There has been much talk (and agitation) about the Supreme Court's lack 
of transparency. There is no live video or audio feed of its arguments. 
News organizations used to have to beg to get the same day release of 
audio in certain high profile cases, and even that now is ordinarily not 
available. There is no electronic filing system, and one cannot even get 
copies of briefs or even some Court orders from the Court itself. 
Instead, everyone has to rely on outside groups such as the ABA or 
SCOTUSBlog or the parties themselves.

After the Court's long conference last week, the Court did not issue 
orders the day after the conference as many expected, and the Court made 
no public announcement as to when orders were going to come down (though 
they did, as rumored <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66172>, at 9:30 am 
last Thursday).  Why the great secrecy? Should it be a state secret when 
the Court is issuing orders, or opinions?  Why not, as the California 
Supreme Court does, give notice of forthcoming filings as they are ready 
to come down?

For a public government body, this lack of transparency and ease of 
access to documents, arguments, and action are inexcusable.

But the Court gave itself a black eye this morning in its release of 
orders, in a way which says more about the Court's lack of 
communications competence than about any policy of transparency. This 
morning the Court released hard copies of its order list to the press 
with 33 pages missing. At first reporters said there was no action in 
the same sex marriage cases, but that was later corrected. Meanwhile, on 
the much-touted (but actually quite modest in terms of substance) 
Supreme Court website redesign, it took 75 minutes 
<http://howappealing.abovethelaw.com/100614.html#058261> for an online 
copy of the order list to appear.

Everyone makes mistakes, and the order list issue is not a big deal. But 
it is an occasion to highlight that if the Court wanted to make its work 
more accessible to the public and to those who follow the Court closely, 
there is much room for improvement.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66399&title=%23SCOTUS%20Communications%20Problem%20Today%20Highlights%20Transparency%20Issues&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

    "District Court Rejects Challenge to Disclosure Provisions Upheld by
    Supreme Court in Citizens United" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66396>

Posted onOctober 6, 2014 8:47 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66396>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

CLC 
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2624:october-6-2014-district-court-rejects-challenge-to-disclosure-provisions-upheld-by-supreme-court-in-citizens-united&catid=63:legal-center-press-releases&Itemid=61>: 
"Today, the//U.S. District Court for the District of Columbiadismissed 
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/images/Independence_Institute_v_FEC_-_DC_Dist_Ct_Opinion_Disimissing_10-6-14.pdf>a 
challenge to the federal 'electioneering communications' disclosure 
provisions in/Independence Institute v. Federal Election 
Commission/ (/FEC)./Last month, the Campaign Legal Center, joined by 
Democracy 21 and Public Citizen, filed an/amici/brief 
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/images/Ind_Inst_v_FEC_CLC_D21_Pub_Cit_Amici_Br_FINAL_9-19-14.pdf>in 
the case,//urging the//Court to reject the suit, arguing that the exact 
same disclosure provisions had been upheld by the Supreme Court as 
recently as the 2010/Citizens United/decision."

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66396&title=%E2%80%9CDistrict%20Court%20Rejects%20Challenge%20to%20Disclosure%20Provisions%20Upheld%20by%20Supreme%20Court%20in%20Citizens%20United%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

-- 
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/20141006/08648957/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/20141006/08648957/attachment.png>