[EL] Breaking news (5th Cir.) / more news
Justin Levitt
levittj at lls.edu
Tue Oct 14 14:16:25 PDT 2014
BREAKING: 5th Circuit Stays Voter ID Order
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66865>
Posted onOctober 14, 2014 2:15 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66865>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
And the wait is over, for now. The 5th Circuitjust stayed the district
court's order
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141014-5th.pdf>blocking
ID --- which means at the moment, the ID law is back in place in Texas.
Stay tuned for an application to SCOTUS. More analysis coming.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66865&title=BREAKING%3A%205th%20Circuit%20Stays%20Voter%20ID%20Order&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
U. Edinburgh Study Suggests Lowering Voting Age to 16
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66862>
Posted onOctober 14, 2014 2:04 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66862>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
TheTimes of India reports
<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/Voting-age-should-be-lowered-to-16-Study/articleshow/44804856.cms>on
a University of Edinburgh study reviewing voting in the recent
referendum on Scottish independence, in which 16 and 17-year-old
citizens were allowed to vote. The study also found that active
discussion of the referendum in schools had more influence on the
students' vote than did parents. No word on the comparative influence
ofOne Direction <http://www.onedirectionmusic.com/us/home/>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66862&title=U.%20Edinburgh%20Study%20Suggests%20Lowering%20Voting%20Age%20to%2016&description=>
Posted invoting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
(Some of) the FEC On (Some of) the Road
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66860>
Posted onOctober 14, 2014 2:03 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66860>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Injust a few hours
<https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-price-of-democracy-federal-election-commission-vice-chair-ann-ravel-registration-13163058061>,
Prof. Nick Stephanopoulos, at Chicago, talks to FEC Vice Chair Ann
Ravel, who's apparently on a "listening tour" across (some of) the country.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66860&title=%28Some%20of%29%20the%20FEC%20On%20%28Some%20of%29%20the%20Road&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,federal
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>
"This Ruling Could Put Texas Back In The Doghouse On Voting Law
Changes" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66858>
Posted onOctober 14, 2014 2:01 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66858>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
TPM covers
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/texas-voter-id-preclearance>the
potential forbailing Texas back into federal preclearance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66595>under the Voting Rights Act, after
a finding of intentional discrimination by the federal court reviewing
the state's new ID rule.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66858&title=%E2%80%9CThis%20Ruling%20Could%20Put%20Texas%20Back%20In%20The%20Doghouse%20On%20Voting%20Law%20Changes%E2%80%9D&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>
"Supreme Court Was Right to Put Voter ID On Hold"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66856>
Posted onOctober 14, 2014 2:00 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66856>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
From theeditorial board
<http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/opinion/editorials/2014/10/13/supreme-court-right-put-voter-hold/17225795/>of
the Green Bay Press-Gazette.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66856&title=%E2%80%9CSupreme%20Court%20Was%20Right%20to%20Put%20Voter%20ID%20On%20Hold%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,election law and constitutional law
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=55>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
November Conference on Judicial Recusal
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66854>
Posted onOctober 14, 2014 1:59 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66854>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
The NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, the Brennan Center,
and the ABA's Center for Professional Responsibility are one month out
from agreat-looking symposium <http://www.nyujlpp.org/symposia/>on
judicial recusal after/Caperton/. Looks like a wonderful lineup,
including academics, advocates, and a significant number of judges and
justices.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66854&title=November%20Conference%20on%20Judicial%20Recusal&description=>
Posted injudicial elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>
Convincing Virginia State Senator Puckett to Stick Around
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66852>
Posted onOctober 14, 2014 1:59 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66852>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Thefallout continues
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/mark-warner-denies-offering-job-to-senators-daughter/2014/10/13/7d5fff5a-5303-11e4-809b-8cc0a295c773_story.html?hpid=z2>for
Virginia officials allegedly involved in discussions about persuading
State Senator Puckett to put off resigning; when Puckett resigned,
Republicans gained control of the Senate. Now, Sen. Mark Warner has
explained his conversations about potential jobs for Puckett's daughter.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66852&title=Convincing%20Virginia%20State%20Senator%20Puckett%20to%20Stick%20Around&description=>
Posted inchicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
Great New New York Election Resources
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66850>
Posted onOctober 14, 2014 1:57 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66850>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
From Jim Gardner, Michael Halberstam, and Jeff Wice, and the Jaeckle
Center for Law, Democracy and Governance at Buffalo Law School, twogreat
new resources <http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2014/10/017.html>for
New York elections. The first isNew York Elections News
<http://nyelectionsnews.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/todd-breitbart-analyzes-the-citizens-union-redistricting-report-calls-it-pure-fantasy/>,
a blog covering what it sounds like. It's been spending a fair amount
of time on New York's proposed state constitutional amendment changing
the redistricting process, includingstrong commentary by Todd Breitbart
<http://nyelectionsnews.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/todd-breitbart-analyzes-the-citizens-union-redistricting-report-calls-it-pure-fantasy/>,
a former NY Senate staff member and expert on the issue.
The second is the New York State Democracy Clearinghouse, a collection
of local redistricting maps, materials, and election data from New York
state. As someone who knows a little something aboutcollecting
redistricting information <http://redistricting.lls.edu/>, I can promise
that this sort of endeavor is sorely needed. I decided early on that I
had to focus on state legislative and congressional redistricting; local
redistricting is at least as important, but the volume of information
made it not feasible for me to try to track nationwide. The Jaeckle
Center's clearinghouse promises to be a vital and exceedingly welcome
resource for practitioners, researchers, and engaged New Yorkers.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66850&title=Great%20New%20New%20York%20Election%20Resources&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,election law biz
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>,redistricting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
Justice Alito's Disturbing Statement in Wisconsin Voter ID Case
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66784>
Posted onOctober 14, 2014 9:00 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66784>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
[Bumping to the top with a brief update.]
Last week <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66601>the Supreme Courtvoted
6-3<http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/14A352-Wisconsin-voting-order-10-9-14.pdf>to
stop ahorrendous <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66413>7th Circuit court
order allowing Wisconsin to immediately put its voter id law into
effect. Regardless of where you stand on the desirability of voter id
laws (I oppose these tough state laws but support a national voter id
program coupled with universal voter registration done by the federal
government with the government picking up all costs of verifying
identity), the Supreme Court made the right call. Wisconsin had an 8
month plan to implement ID which was going to have to be done within 8
weeks; the state conceded that up to 10 percent of eligible voters might
not be able to get ID in time for the election; and the parties agreed
that some WI voters born out of state who had to get out of state birth
certificates were going to have a very difficult time getting their
documentation in time. On top of that, there were absentee voters who
had already voted before the ID law was in effect, and they were going
to be disenfranchised unless they followed up with getting additional
documentation to WI election officials in time.
Faced with all of this, the majority put WI's voter id law on hold for
this election, so that it may be rolled out in a smoother way over time.
But Justice Alito, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, dissented.
They seemed to acknowledge the disenfranchising risks and the "Purcell
principle
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/10/supreme_court_voting_rights_decisions_contradictions_in_wisconsin_ohio_north.html>"
that courts should not change election rules just before an election,
but they saw a bigger principle at stake:
There is a colorable basis for the Court's decision due to the
proximity of the upcoming general election. It is particularly
troubling that absentee ballots have been sent out without any
notation that proof of photo identification must be submitted. But
this Court "may not vacate a stay entered by a court of appeals
unless that court clearly and'demonstrably' erred in its application
of 'accepted standards.'"/Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex.
Surgical Health Servs./v/. Abbott/, 571 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip
op., at 1) (SCALIA, J., concurring in denial of application to
vacate stay) (quoting/Western Airlines, Inc./v./Teamsters/, 480 U.
S. 1301, 1305 (1987) (O'Connor, J., in chambers);some internal
quotation marks omitted). Under that test, the application in this
case should be denied.
The bigger principle Justice Alito recognizes is deference to the Court
of Appeals. Of course, the Supreme Court showed no deference in Purcell
itself, when the Ninth Circuit issued a stay stopping use of Arizona's
law. No deference to the Courts of Appeal in the Ohio or North Carolina
cases either, both cases in which Courts expanded voting rights. So why
deference here? Because the 7th Circuit was clearly right? Well that's
belied by the 7th Circuit's 5-5 split over whether to rehear the
Wisconsin case en banc.
Further, why should a principle of deference which is applied as a
matter of equity trump the actuality, and not merely the risk, of voter
disenfranchisement in Wisconsin? Simply put, Justices Alito, Scalia and
Thomas do not value the right to vote as strongly as the other members
of the Court (which is also shown in their separate opinion in the 2008
Crawford Indiana voter id case, where Justice Scalia wrote for these
Justices that so long as most people would not be disenfranchised by a
voter id law, then no one could challenge that law---even those people
who would have special difficulty getting an ID.)
UPDATE: If the Texas case ends up at the Supreme Court, it seems pretty
clear from the Wisconsin case that there are at least three votes to
allow Texas to use its ID law in this election.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66784&title=Justice%20Alito%E2%80%99s%20Disturbing%20Statement%20in%20Wisconsin%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>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
--
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/20141014/a123a37b/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/20141014/a123a37b/attachment.png>
View list directory