[EL] ELB News and Commentary 10/8/14
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Wed Oct 8 08:09:14 PDT 2014
"NC says it's making plans to comply with voter law"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66504>
Posted onOctober 8, 2014 8:06 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66504>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WRAL
<http://www.wral.com/judge-wants-nc-to-discuss-voting-changes/14051854/>:
North Carolina is moving ahead with plans to comply with an appeals
court ruling that restores same-day registration and counting
out-of-precinct ballots for the fall election, a state attorney told
a federal judge Tuesday.
But members of civil rights groups that sued to restore the
activities told U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Schroeder the State
Board of Elections has to do a better job of letting voters know
they will be happening.
In the meantime, we arewaiting to see
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66469>if the Supreme Court undoes the 4th
Circuit's order.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66504&title=%E2%80%9CNC%20says%20it%E2%80%99s%20making%20plans%20to%20comply%20with%20voter%20law%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>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
"10th Circuit Fuzzy on Colorado Election Law"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66502>
Posted onOctober 8, 2014 8:01 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66502>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Report from oral argument
<http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/10/08/72234.htm>in Citizens United
disclosure case in CO.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66502&title=%E2%80%9C10th%20Circuit%20Fuzzy%20on%20Colorado%20Election%20Law%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
6th Circuit Denies Preliminary Injunction in Judicial Campaign
Solicitation Case <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66500>
Posted onOctober 8, 2014 7:56 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66500>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
You can read the opinionhere,
<http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0252p-06.pdf>which says
very little on the merits of the constitutional claim.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66500&title=6th%20Circuit%20Denies%20Preliminary%20Injunction%20in%20Judicial%20Campaign%20Solicitation%20Case&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,judicial elections
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>
Local CA Republican Parties Agree to Pay Fines for Acting as
Conduits for Contributions <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66498>
Posted onOctober 8, 2014 7:48 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66498>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bloomberg BNA
<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=57309061&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0f7c6h9m7&split=0>:
"Three local Republican campaign committees in California and an
apartment management company have agreed to pay a total of $65,000 in
fines for bundling payments to candidates or failing to disclose the
source of payments they made to state candidates as intermediaries, the
California Fair Political Practices Commission said Oct. 6."
I was involved in litigation (and then legislation) in the City of San
Diego aimed at stopping political parties from acting as conduits to
allow individuals to evade individual contribution limits.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66498&title=Local%20CA%20Republican%20Parties%20Agree%20to%20Pay%20Fines%20for%20Acting%20as%20Conduits%20for%20Contributions&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,political
parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>
"Republican Challenge to Soft-Money Ban Certified for Consideration
by D.C. Circuit" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66496>
Posted onOctober 8, 2014 7:45 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66496>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bloomberg BNA
<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=57309063&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0f7c6k3b5&split=0>:
A Republican Party challenge to the ban on unlimited "soft money"
contributions to political parties is now before a federal appeals
court in Washington, following action by a lower court to certify
constitutional questions to be addressed by the appeals court
(Republican National Committee v. Federal Election Commission
<http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Republican_National_Committee_et_al_v_FEC_Docket_No_1405241_DC_Ci>,
D.C. Cir., 14-5241, certified questions submitted 10/6/14).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on
Oct. 6 docketed a 28-page certification order presenting questions
the court must answer in the soft-money case. Under special rules
for certain campaign finance cases, the case is set to be heard by
the en banc panel of all active D.C. Circuit judges. No schedule for
action by the appeals court has been released....
The certified questions were advanced to the D.C. Circuit by Judge
Christopher R. Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia. Before approving the certified question order, the judge
in August denied a bid by the RNC and other plaintiffs to have their
case decided by a special three-judge panel under a separate
procedure for handling campaign finance cases, which could have
spurred prompter consideration of the soft-money ban by the Supreme
Court.
Soon after the RNC's case was filed this summer, lawyers for the
party committees and the FEC argued in court about whether the
lawsuit challenging the soft-money ban should be heard under the
fast-track procedures, including convening a three-judge court (3810
Money & Politics Report, 7/25/14
<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/display/link_res.adp?fedfid=57309063&fname=a0f3u4w2g7&vname=mpebulallissues>).
If the case was heard by a three-judge court, that court's ruling
could immediately be appealed to the Supreme Court without being
considered by the D.C. Circuit.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66496&title=%E2%80%9CRepublican%20Challenge%20to%20Soft-Money%20Ban%20Certified%20for%20Consideration%20by%20D.C.%20Circuit%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
More on CPA-Zicklin Index <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66494>
Posted onOctober 8, 2014 7:34 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66494>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Motley Fool
<http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/10/04/theres-a-powerful-case-for-better-corporate-politi.aspx>
Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial
Regulation
<http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2014/10/07/2014-cpa-zicklin-index-of-corporate-political-disclosure/>
Corporate Counsel
<http://www.corpcounsel.com/top-stories/id=1202672476227/More-Corporate-Political-Spending-More-Disclosure-Too?slreturn=20140907064213>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66494&title=More%20on%20CPA-Zicklin%20Index&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
"Movement at the Federal Election Commission"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66492>
Posted onOctober 8, 2014 7:27 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66492>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bob Bauer blogs.
<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2014/10/movement-federal-election-commission/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66492&title=%E2%80%9CMovement%20at%20the%20Federal%20Election%20Commission%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,federal
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>
"In Independence Institute, a Pro-Disclosure Decision---But With No
Disclosure to Follow" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66490>
Posted onOctober 8, 2014 7:26 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66490>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Brian Svoboda blogs
<http://www.lawandpoliticsupdate.com/2014/10/in-independence-institute-a-pro-disclosure-decision-but-with-no-disclosure-to-follow/>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66490&title=%E2%80%9CIn%20Independence%20Institute%2C%20a%20Pro-Disclosure%20Decision%E2%80%94But%20With%20No%20Disclosure%20to%20Follow%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
"New pro-Ernst super PAC run out of firm of Joni Ernst strategist"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66488>
Posted onOctober 8, 2014 7:25 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66488>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Matea
Gold<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/10/07/new-pro-ernst-super-pac-run-out-of-firm-of-joni-ernst-strategist/>for
WaPo:
A new super PAC launching a $1 million TV campaign against
Democratic Senate hopeful Bruce Braley in Iowa this week is run out
of the Des Moines consulting firm of a strategist for Braley's GOP
opponent --- the latest example of how campaigns and their outside
allies are operating in close proximity
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/scott-walker-case-shows-growing-closeness-between-politicians-and-wealthy-allies/2014/06/23/e8b9304e-f955-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66488&title=%E2%80%9CNew%20pro-Ernst%20super%20PAC%20run%20out%20of%20firm%20of%20Joni%20Ernst%20strategist%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
"Court declares Virginia's congressional map unconstitutional"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66486>
Posted onOctober 7, 2014 7:53 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66486>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo reports.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/court-throws-out-virginia-congressional-map/2014/10/07/97fb866a-4e56-11e4-8c24-487e92bc997b_story.html?hpid=z1>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66486&title=%E2%80%9CCourt%20declares%20Virginia%E2%80%99s%20congressional%20map%20unconstitutional%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>
NC Files Follow Up #SCOTUS Letter on Today's Voting Hearing in
District Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66483>
Posted onOctober 7, 2014 5:03 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66483>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Following up onthis pos <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66469>t, North
Carolina has filedthis letter
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/10-7ResponseLtr.pdf>with
the Supreme Court. As anticipated, it has a much different take on what
happened today in the trial court over the question of how onerous it
would be to implement the 4th Circuit's order.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66483&title=NC%20Files%20Follow%20Up%20%23SCOTUS%20Letter%20on%20Today%E2%80%99s%20Voting%20Hearing%20in%20District%20Court&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
The Virginia redistricting decision
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66481>
Posted onOctober 7, 2014 3:59 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66481>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Rickmentioned <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66456>the
Virginiacongressional redistricting decision
<http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Virginia-Gerrymandering.pdf> earlier
today.
I've already seen some confusion about this: the decision doesn't depend
on /Shelby County/. Indeed, as I read it, the decision would have been
exactly the the same if /Shelby County/came out differently --- or
hadn't been decided at all.
Instead, what the court found is that Virginia's deployment of race in
the redistricting process was hamhanded rather than nuanced, and
therefore unconstitutional. That is, in purportedly attempting to
comply with section 5, Virginia focused on a demographic target alone,
without any attention to the actual "effective exercise of the electoral
franchise" on the ground. That kind of shorthand doesn't fly, not least
because it shows exactly the sort of essentialism section 5 was designed
to combat.
Unfortunately, Virginia's mistake is all too common this cycle. As Rick
says, this issue is also involved in theAlabama case now up before the
Supreme Court <http://redistricting.lls.edu/cases.php#AL>. But it's not
just Alabama. Versions of this same problem have cropped up in
California, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas --- at least.
I've reviewed each of these cases, and the governing law --- arriving at
essentially the same conclusion as the court in Virginia --- inthis new
law review piece <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2487426>. The majority cited
no secondary source; perhaps because mine is the first I'm aware of that
connects the dots on the overly blunt misinterpretation of the Voting
Rights Act. (Law Review 2Ls: it's still available! Act now, while
supplies last!)
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66481&title=The%20Virginia%20redistricting%20decision&description=>
Posted inelection law and constitutional law
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=55>,redistricting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
The 7th Circuit denominator <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66472>
Posted onOctober 7, 2014 3:42 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66472>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
No time like the present to start "easing in," I guess.
Others have already said quite a bit about yesterday's7th Circuit voter
ID decision
<http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2014/D10-06/C:14-2058:J:Easterbrook:aut:T:fnOp:N:1429868:S:0>.
I've writtenmany
<http://summaryjudgments.lls.edu/2012/10/company-at-30000-feet-plane-travel-and_2161.html>times
<http://ssrn.com/abstract=2017228>about the ID-on-a-plane fallacy (it's
both irrelevant and wrong), aboutusing
<http://ssrn.com/abstract=2017228>turnout
<http://department-lists.uci.edu/pipermail/law-election/2013-July/007405.html>to
gauge a regulation's impact (if it's the right measure, then it's
constitutional to disenfranchise anyone who didn't vote in a
high-turnout year like 2008), and about theright
<http://ssrn.com/abstract=2017228>way
<http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/node/12360>to interpret Crawford (it did
not hold that Indiana's statute is "compatible with the Constitution"
(an advisory decision that would violate the rights of all absent
parties); it held that the evidence presented by the plaintiffs in the
case was insufficient to show that the statute is unconstitutional,
which is a significant difference).
I just want to add one more piece at the moment. Judge Easterbrook said
that the Wisconsin suit, "like /Crawford/, is a challenge to Act 23 as
written ('on its face'), rather than to its effects ('as applied')."
No, it's not.
Let's see if the text of theactual complaint
<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/firstamendedcomplaint_001.pdf>can
clear this up: "This lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that the photo
ID law is unconstitutional as applied to certain classes of eligible
Wisconsin voters and to enjoin its enforcement with respect to these
classes." To be fair, the district court declined to rule on the
certification of classes, and enjoined the implementation of the statute
across the board. Perhaps that confused the 7th Circuit. But what the
plaintiffs actually requested is a remedy tailored to the particular
burdens theydemonstrated. By refusing to confront the suit the
plaintiffs actually pled, the 7th Circuit expanded the denominator for
cognizable injury. That is, by ignoring the true nature of the
challenge and expanding the case to encompass all the voters in the
state, it could make inference upon inference (or, if you prefer,
speculation) upon what most Wisconsinites (absent from the case) could
probably do, and ignore the actual evidence presented by the actual
people seeking to represent similarly situated others.
(Disclosure: I contributed a bit to discussions about the complaint in
the Wisconsin case. I did not draft it, and did not participate in the
litigation thereafter.)
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66472&title=The%207th%20Circuit%20denominator&description=>
Posted inThe Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
Justin Levitt Guest Blogging Wed Night through Oct. 18
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66477>
Posted onOctober 7, 2014 3:35 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66477>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I will be on the road (which will includethese talks
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66243>) beginning the close of business
Wednesday through October 18. I will still be chiming in with commentary
on SCOTUS election developments as I can, but follow Justin for all the
breaking news.
If you have a tip, press release or most of all a complaint about
something I've written, pleasesend it to Justin
<http://www.lls.edu/aboutus/facultyadministration/faculty/facultylistl-r/levittjustin/>.
Ortweet at him <https://twitter.com/_justinlevitt_>. Just don't clog my
inbox when I'm on the road. I hate that.
I would feel uneasy about leaving the blog in the midst of the election
craziness, but trust me that you are in very, very good hands.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66477&title=Justin%20Levitt%20Guest%20Blogging%20Wed%20Night%20through%20Oct.%2018&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
Ninth Circuit Taking Initiative Proponent Disclosure Case En Banc
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66473>
Posted onOctober 7, 2014 3:29 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66473>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The order is here
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/chula-order.pdf>.
Here ismy post<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62398>on the panel's
original decision, a decision which is wiped out by today's grant of an
en banc hearing:
* Breaking: Divided 9th Circuit Strikes Down CA Law Requiring
Identity of Ballot Measure Proponents on Face of Petition*
Posted on June 16, 2014 9:44 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62398> by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The vote on this point in Chula Vista Citizens for Jobs v. Norris
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Chula-Vista-opinion.pdf> was
2-1. I expect this issue will go en banc and perhaps to the Supreme
Court---with a decent chance of reversal.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62398&title=Breaking%3A%20Divided%209th%20Circuit%20Strikes%20Down%20CA%20Law%20Requiring%20Identity%20of%20Ballot%20Measure%20Proponents%20on%20Face%20of%20Petition&description=%20Election%20Law%20Blog%20-%20Rick%20Hasen%27s%20blog%20>
This entry was posted in direct democracy
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>, petition signature gathering
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=39> by
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66473&title=Ninth%20Circuit%20Taking%20Initiative%20Proponent%20Disclosure%20Case%20En%20Banc&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,direct democracy
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>
No North Carolina Ruling from #SCOTUS Yet: What Does It Mean?
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66469>
Posted onOctober 7, 2014 3:05 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66469>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
It is the end of the work day on the East Coast, and the day has come
and gone with no order from the Supreme Court on North Carolina's
request to stop the 4th Circuit's order requiring the restoration of
same day voter registration and the counting of out-of-precinct ballots
which the state of NC legislature had cut in a controversial election
bill passed by the Republican-dominated legislature.
I had expected a ruling by now, primarily because Chief Justice Roberts
put the case on the extremely fast track for decision--requiring the
challengers to the North Carolina law to file a response to North
Carolina's motion by Sunday at 5 pm. In contrast, Justice Kagan in the
Wisconsin voter id case, gave the state of Wisconsin until Tuesday to
file their response.
So why the delay?
There is no way to know from the outside, but here are some
possibilities, beginning with the most likely.
1. Someone is dissenting, or at least writing something to explain the
decision. In the Ohio case, issued last week, the vote was 5-4 but
there was no explanation from either the (conservative) majority or the
(liberal) dissenters. Someone may want to say something here, either
objecting to or explaining what the Court is doing.
2. The Court decided it wants more information and decided to wait.
Today the trial court held a status hearing in the case and, according
toa just-filed
letter<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/14A358-10-7-Letter-from-Respondents.pdf>from
NC challengers, the state said it would be easy to implement the 4th
Circuit's order. The challengers promise a transcript and no doubt NC
will object to this characterization.
3. The Court wants to decide the North Carolina and Wisconsin case
together, or perhaps a dissenter wants to reference a potential
inconsistent treatment of the Purcell delay issue in the two cases. That
would mean waiting until the further briefing came in in the Wisconsin case.
We may have a better sense of which, if any, of this speculation is
correct when the order arrives. If it comes after 5 pm Eastern tomorrow,
however, I'll be leaving for a flight and the great Justin Levitt, who
will be guest blogging, will provide you with all the details. (What,
you don't yet follow him on Twitter? Wellfix that right now
<https://twitter.com/_justinlevitt_>!)
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66469&title=No%20North%20Carolina%20Ruling%20from%20%23SCOTUS%20Yet%3A%20What%20Does%20It%20Mean%3F&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
The Ed Blum Law Firm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66467>
Posted onOctober 7, 2014 2:02 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66467>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Tony Mauro
<http://www.nationallawjournal.com/supremecourtbrief/id=1202672649620/ExWiley-Rein-Lawyers-Form-Appellate-Boutique?cmp=share_twitter&slreturn=20140907165623>:
Two Wiley Rein partners from the Washington office have left the
firm---and they are taking a Supreme Court legal clinic and parts of
some high-profile litigation with them.
William Consovoy and Thomas McCarthy last week launched the firm
Consovoy McCarthy <http://consovoymccarthy.com/>. Among its clients,
Consovoy said Monday, will be Edward Blum of the Project on Fair
Representation, who has masterminded and funded legal challenges
against affirmative action policies in higher education.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66467&title=The%20Ed%20Blum%20Law%20Firm&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
Read Wisconsin's #SCOTUS Argument to Use Its New Voter ID Law This
Election <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66460>
Posted onOctober 7, 2014 12:58 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66460>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here
<http://images.politico.com/global/2014/10/07/14a352_response.pdf> (via
Josh Gerstein). The brief is pretty much in line with what Wisconsin
filed in the 7th Circuit (although of course now it has the benefit of
theEasterbrook opinion <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66413>on the
merits). It continues to lead with itschutzpah-filled
argument<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65804>that it would cause voter
confusion to undo the confusion caused by the 7th Circuit's surprise order.
It is funny watching Wisconsin try to argue there's no conflict over the
meaning of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act given the 4th Circuit
North Carolina case also pending this very moment before the Court
reaching a totally different view of the meaning of section 2.
The one new point which I think does point in Wisconsin's favor is the
timing of the objections to the order. Opponents of WI voter id law
waited days before going to the 7th Circuit en banc (when they could
have gone straight to SCOTUS) and days more before bringing the case to
SCOTUS.
I still think given the Purcell issue the challengers arefairly likely
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66198>to get a stay in this case, but I'm
not at all certain of that.
Stay tuned.
[This post has been updated.]
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66460&title=Read%20Wisconsin%E2%80%99s%20%23SCOTUS%20Argument%20to%20Use%20Its%20New%20Voter%20ID%20Law%20This%20Election&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
Only 128 New Voters, Not Over 3,200, Registered in Ferguson, MO
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66458>
Posted onOctober 7, 2014 12:46 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66458>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Can't wait
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/ferguson-missouri-voter-registration-drive-didnt-happen>to
hear how the elections board made this error.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66458&title=Only%20128%20New%20Voters%2C%20Not%20Over%203%2C200%2C%20Registered%20in%20Ferguson%2C%20MO&description=>
Posted invoter registration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>
Breaking: Federal Court Strikes Va. Congressional Redistricting Map
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66456>
Posted onOctober 7, 2014 12:24 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66456>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
In a 2-1 vote, a three judge federal courthas
rejected<http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Virginia-Gerrymandering.pdf>part
of Virginia's congressional redistricting as unconstitutional. The
majority ruled that the redistricting involving a majority-minority
district violated the equal protection clause as an unconstitutional
racial gerrymander (a /Shaw v. Reno/type claim) because race was the
predominant factor in redistricting. The state had defended its packing
of minority voters into fewer districts to comply with Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act but the majority did not buy it. From the majority
opinion:
For the reasons that follow, we find that Plaintiffs have shown race
predominated. We find that the Third Congressional District cannot
survive review under the exacting standard of strict scrutiny. While
compliance with Section 5 was a compelling interest when the
legislature acted, the redistricting plan was not narrowly tailored
to further that interest. Accordingly, we are compelled to hold that
the challenged Third Congressional District violates the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The dissenting judge believed that political considerations, not race,
predominated in the redistricting.
What happens next? AsThink Progress notes
<http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/10/07/3577120/breaking-federal-court-declares-virginias-congressional-maps-unconstitutional/>,
any new redistricting will have to be signed by the new Democratic governor.
If Virginia does appeal to the Supreme Court, I expect the case will be
held for theAlabama redistricting cases
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/alabama-democratic-conference-v-alabama/?wpmp_switcher=desktop>,
which raise virtually the same issue. (I will be covering this case for
SCOTUSBlog.)
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66456&title=Breaking%3A%20Federal%20Court%20Strikes%20Va.%20Congressional%20Redistricting%20Map&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
--
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/20141008/ff162f7f/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/20141008/ff162f7f/attachment.png>
View list directory