[EL] more news 10/9
Justin Levitt
levittj at lls.edu
Thu Oct 9 16:28:53 PDT 2014
Nothing Yet from SCOTUS on WI Stay <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66589>
Posted onOctober 9, 2014 3:28 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66589>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Coming up on 6:30pm ET, and nothing yet today from SCOTUS oneither of
the applications for a stay <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66511>of the
7th Circuit's decisions on WI voter ID. But given yesterday's late
release, the day is apparently still young.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66589&title=Nothing%20Yet%20from%20SCOTUS%20on%20WI%20Stay&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>Edit
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=66589&action=edit>
Lewis Black Strides Boldly into the Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66587>
Posted onOctober 9, 2014 3:25 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66587>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
It'sclassic Lewis Black
<http://time.com/3485052/lewis-black-voting-laws/>. Which is to say, NvSFW.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66587&title=Lewis%20Black%20Strides%20Boldly%20into%20the%20Voting%20Wars&description=>
Posted inThe Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>Edit
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=66587&action=edit>
Secretary of State Races <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66585>
Posted onOctober 9, 2014 3:24 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66585>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Lead this week'selectionlineWeekly
<http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66585&title=Secretary%20of%20State%20Races&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>Edit
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=66585&action=edit>
More FEC reports and reactions <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66583>
Posted onOctober 9, 2014 3:23 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66583>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Most of the reports focus largely on the advisory opinion approving
fundraising earmarked for party conventions on top of the $32,400 limit
on contributions to the national parties.
FromThe Hill
<http://thehill.com/regulation/220285-fec-dials-back-campaign-finance-rules>,NPR
<http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/10/09/354884204/fec-greenlights-more-convention-cash-for-political-parties>,Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/fec-parties-conventions-111741.html>,Time
<http://time.com/3486291/with-convention-ruling-fec-clears-doubling-of-donations/>,USA
Today
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/09/political-parties-get-ok-to-raise-convention-cash/16983499/>,Wall
St. Journal
<http://online.wsj.com/articles/federal-election-commission-allows-new-funding-stream-for-political-conventions-1412889948>,Washington
Times
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/9/fec-deletes-unconstitutional-campaign-regulations/>.
CLC
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2631:october-9-2014-fec-invites-more-influence-buying-in-washington--approves-request-to-double-limits-on-contributions-to-rnc-a-dnc&catid=63:legal-center-press-releases&Itemid=61>,Democracy
21
<http://www.democracy21.org/money-in-politics/letters-to-the-fec/democratic-fec-commissioner-joins-with-three-republican-commissioners-to-gut-political-party-contribution-limits/>,
and Sunlight
<http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/10/09/double-or-something-party-committees-can-raise-double-the-money-from-donors/>also
weigh in on the party convention advisory opinion.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66583&title=More%20FEC%20reports%20and%20reactions&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>Edit
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=66583&action=edit>
"FEC Votes Suggest Gridlock is Easing"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66581>
Posted onOctober 9, 2014 3:23 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66581>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
APolitico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/federal-election-commission-votes-111732.html?hp=r2>report
on today's meeting begins: "The deep freeze at the Federal Election
Commission may be thawing."
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66581&title=%E2%80%9CFEC%20Votes%20Suggest%20Gridlock%20is%20Easing%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>Edit
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=66581&action=edit>
"Let's Be Real Here" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66578>
Posted onOctober 9, 2014 3:20 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66578>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub
<http://www.fec.gov/members/weintraub/statements/2014-10-09_Statement_of_Commissioner_Weintraub_on_2014_CU_Rulemaking.pdf> dissents
from today's rulemaking following/Citizens United/.
Vice Chair Ann Ravel
<http://www.fec.gov/members/ravel/statements/CU_McCutcheon_Stmt_Signed_10-9-14.pdf>(who
voted for the new rule) andCommissioner Steven Walther
<http://www.fec.gov/members/walther/statements/10-9-14_Statement_of_Commissioner_Steven_T_Walther_on_2014_CU_Rulemaking.pdf>(who
voted against) also issued statements.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66578&title=%E2%80%9CLet%E2%80%99s%20Be%20Real%20Here%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>Edit
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=66578&action=edit>
Breaking: New FEC Rules <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66574>
Posted onOctober 9, 2014 11:44 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66574>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
BNA reports
<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/lpages/lpages.adp?pg=breaking_news&bn_product=mpdm#urn:bna:a0f7e6a3z4>.
Looks likenew rules <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66559>to implement
Citizens United passed 4-2, but without (for the moment) a decision to
move forward on disclosure. The FEC also approved (again, 4-2) the
DNC/RNC request for an advisory opinion permitting the parties to raise
funds for the 2016 conventions on top of the $32,400 calendar-year limit
on contributions to the national party committees. And by 5-1 votes,
both Jack Trammell and David Brat get to keep their employer-paid health
insurance while campaigning for Eric Cantor's former seat.
[Update: FEC press release ishere
<http://www.fec.gov/press/press2014/news_releases/20141009release.shtml>, with
links to all of the new rules and advisory opinions.]
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66574&title=Breaking%3A%20New%20FEC%20Rules&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,federal
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>Edit
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=66574&action=edit>
Why Breyer and Kagan Did Not Dissent in NC Voting Case, and What
That Tells Us About WI Voter ID Case
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66570>
Posted onOctober 9, 2014 8:11 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66570>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Yesterday'sSupreme Court
order<https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1311436/14a358-nc.pdf>in
theNorth Carolina voting case
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/us/parts-of-north-carolina-law-limiting-vote-are-restored-by-justices.html?ref=politics&_r=0>(whichJustin
covered here <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66538>while I was travelling
and which Howardrounds up
<http://howappealing.abovethelaw.com/100814.html#058358>) reached the
result I had beenexpecting <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66433>: a
reversal of the 4th Circuit order restoring same day voter registration
and the counting of certain out-of-precinct ballots for the upcoming
election. But the order had some surprises, and it may shed light on
the other big pending case, Wisconsin's voter id case.
The first surprise was the timing. The order did not come until about 7
pm on the East Coast (here'sLyle's SCOTUSBlog coverage
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/court-allows-north-carolina-voting-limits/>).
Given thedelays in the case
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66469>(which seem to be at least in part
due to Justice Ginsburg's and Justice Sotomayor's dissent), why release
at 7 pm and not wait until the next day? This suggests to me that there
may have been more going on behind the scenes. Justice Ginsburg is known
as a quick writer and what she wrote would not have taken so long. There
could have been discussions or negotiations that are not clear from the
brief order.
Which brings me to the second and more important surprising point: this
was not a 5-4 decision; it was a 7-2 decision. Why did Justices Breyer
and Kagan not join with Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor in dissent?
(Update: A reader notes they could have privately dissented without
joining Ginsburg.) There are both substantive and strategic
possibilities. Substantively, Justices Breyer and Kagan could well agree
with me that ultimately North Carolina's law, which I've dubbed the
strict set of voting restrictions we've seen enacted as a package since
the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act,should be found
unconstitutional.
<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/> But
even so, under the Purcell v. Gonzalez principle, it was wrong for the
4th Circuit to make this change in the rules so close to the election
(particularly where plaintiffs waited a while to seek a preliminary
injunction [this has been corrected]).
But there's a strategic angle here as well. The Purcell issue looms
very large in the Wisconsin voter id case. That is, even if the Supreme
Court ultimately would say that Wisconsin's law is constitutional and
does not violate the Voting Rights Act, this is a /very/strong case
under Purcell. <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66198> (As I
explained, the key question is whether Wisconsin has a strong enough
state interest in its sovereignty over elections to implement a voter id
law /very quickly/ before the election, when there has been no
preparation and when the /undisputed evidence/ shows that, by the
state's own account, up to *10 percent*//of the state's voters could be
disenfranchised (a position the 7th Circuit en banc dissenters called
shocking <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66102>).
By not joining Ginsburg in the NC dissent, Kagan and Breyer are ready to
(1) appeal to Justices Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts under the
Purcell principle, using an argument of consistency and/or (2) write a
very strong dissent excoriating the majority for allowing WI's voter id
law to go into effect now when it literally can disenfranchise thousands
of Wisconsin voters.
How will it look if the five conservative Justices stand on the side of
Republicans in the Ohio, North Carolina, and Wisconsin cases? Very bad.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66570&title=Why%20Breyer%20and%20Kagan%20Did%20Not%20Dissent%20in%20NC%20Voting%20Case%2C%20and%20What%20That%20Tells%20Us%20About%20WI%20Voter%20ID%20Case&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>
--
Justin Levitt
Professor of Law
Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
919 Albany St.
Los Angeles, CA 90015
213-736-7417
justin.levitt at lls.edu
ssrn.com/author=698321
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141009/6339f8a6/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/20141009/6339f8a6/attachment.png>
View list directory