[EL] more news 10/14
Justin Levitt
levittj at lls.edu
Tue Oct 14 18:35:16 PDT 2014
Note to Rick: you're welcome back from "vacation" any time. :)
KY Electioneering Ban Struck Down <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66913>
Posted onOctober 14, 2014 6:18 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66913>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Still more news from the courts. Kentucky's ban on electioneering
wasstruck down today
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141014-russell-order.pdf>.
The ban extended 300 feet from the entrance to any building used for
voting, and plaintiff John Russell originally brought suit to ensure
that he could post campaign signs (from the opinion, it looks like
standard-issue yard signs) on his auto body business's property, which
was within 300 feet of a polling place (incidentally, a church).
Some of the defendantssettled
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141003-settlement.pdf>,
promising not to enforce the ban on private property within that
300-foot radius. But others did not, and the court struck the statutory
provision on its face.
From the structure of the statute (117.235(3)
<http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=27408>was the
provisionenjoined
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141014-russell-injunction.pdf>),
Ithinkthis means that the only zone currently free from electioneering
in Kentucky is the actual room where voting is conducted. That is,
electioneering is now permitted within 300 feet of the building, within
100 feet of the building, at the door of the building, and even inside
the building, as long as it's not in the room itself, and not disrupting
"law and order at the polls." I'd welcome correction (Josh?) if there
are other supplemental statutes that fill in the blanks here.
Here's apreview from before the case was decided
<http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/13/free-speech-electioneering-laws-collide-nky-case/17217107/>today
-- andmore in the aftermath
<http://www.chron.com/news/article/Judge-blocks-law-banning-campaigning-near-polls-5822405.php>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66913&title=KY%20Electioneering%20Ban%20Struck%20Down&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,election law and constitutional law
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=55>
Citizens United Granted Temporary Exemption from Disclosure for Film
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66911>
Posted onOctober 14, 2014 6:16 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66911>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Rick noted a few weeks ago that the federal trial court was "decidedly
unimpressed with CU's argument related to the media exemption
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65745>." Looks like the Tenth Circuit was
more impressed. A panel todayordered
<https://www.scribd.com/doc/242991080/10th-Circuit-Order-in-Citizens-United-v-Gessler>that
pending final disposition of the appeal, the Citizens United film/Rocky
Mountain Heist/is to be treated not as an electioneering communication
but as the product of a media entity (excluded from electioneering
communications by state law). That means that the film itself can be
aired without disclosing its donors.
Ads placed by Citizens United to promote the film, however, are not
exempt from the reporting and disclosure requirements. There'snot much
explanation
<https://www.scribd.com/doc/242991080/10th-Circuit-Order-in-Citizens-United-v-Gessler>in
the order for the compromise -- but I'm not sure I'd expect this balance
to stick after the election itself, as the case is addressed on the merits.
TheDenver Post has more
<http://www.denverpost.com/election2014/ci_26726464/citizens-united-can-make-movie-without-disclosing-donors?source=infinite>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66911&title=Citizens%20United%20Granted%20Temporary%20Exemption%20from%20Disclosure%20for%20Film&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
"My One Minute of Campaign Finance Fame"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66909>
Posted onOctober 14, 2014 6:15 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66909>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
More movie news. Ciara Torres-Spelliscy
<http://www.stetson.edu/law/faculty/torres-spelliscy-ciara/>reviews
<http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/my-one-minute-campaign-finance-fame>"Pay
2 Play <http://www.pay2play.tv/>" and pay-to-play.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66909&title=%E2%80%9CMy%20One%20Minute%20of%20Campaign%20Finance%20Fame%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,lobbying
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
New Report on Outside Spending and Coordination Rules in State
Elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66907>
Posted onOctober 14, 2014 6:15 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66907>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
TheNY Times editorial page
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/opinion/a-trickle-down-effect-of-citizens-united.html>takes
note of a new Brennan Center report, looking atoutside spending
in*state*elections
<http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/after-citizens-united-story-states>.
The report places particular focus on the degree to which the outside
spending is independent, coordination rules, and enforcement regimes
from state to state. It's a nice reminder that that which is considered
spending "coordinated" with a candidate isn't the same state to state,
isn't always the same as the federal model, anddoesn't always follow lay
intuitions
<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/thenewsoftmoney/wp-content/uploads/sites/57/2014/06/the-new-soft-money-WEB.pdf#page=71>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66907&title=New%20Report%20on%20Outside%20Spending%20and%20Coordination%20Rules%20in%20State%20Elections&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
Still More on Outside Spending <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66905>
Posted onOctober 14, 2014 6:14 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66905>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
InSuperconnected 2014
<http://www.citizen.org/public-citizen-superconnected-2014-outside-groups-report>,
Public Citizenreports
<http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/pressroomredirect.cfm?ID=4310>that "at
least 57 outside groups that can accept unlimited contributions [and
that have spent $100,000 or more this cycle] have devoted all of their
resources to supporting a single congressional candidate."
Public Citizen also claims that "[t]he practice of many groups devoting
their efforts to one candidate suggests that the groups are not truly
independent from those candidates." I have doubts that that fact alone
is reason to find that the groups aren't operating independently. (For
some of the groups, the report offers other ties which may or may not be
indicative of dependence.) But it does seem that if the primary
(permissible) goal of regulation is preventing the appearance that
incumbents are performing policy favors in exchange for donations, the
incentive for a candidate to do favors in return for a major donation to
a single-candidate SuperPAC isn't meaningfully different from the
incentive for a candidate to do favors in return for a major donation to
the candidate's own campaign.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66905&title=Still%20More%20on%20Outside%20Spending&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
"FEC Rulemakings Roil Agency, Critics"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66903>
Posted onOctober 14, 2014 6:14 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66903>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Eliza's latestRules of the Game
<http://blogs.rollcall.com/beltway-insiders/fec-rulemakings-roil-agency-critics/?dcz=>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66903&title=%E2%80%9CFEC%20Rulemakings%20Roil%20Agency%2C%20Critics%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
"In Wisconsin, Dark Money Got a Mining Company What It Wanted"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66901>
Posted onOctober 14, 2014 6:14 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66901>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
ProPublica and the Daily Beasttrack a mining company's donations
<http://www.propublica.org/article/in-wisconsin-dark-money-got-a-mining-company-what-it-wanted>to
conservative nonprofits lobbying and launching state legislative
campaign ads operating to the company's benefit. It's not clear whether
the story laments the lack of disclosure or the spending and political
work or both.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66901&title=%E2%80%9CIn%20Wisconsin%2C%20Dark%20Money%20Got%20a%20Mining%20Company%20What%20It%20Wanted%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,lobbying
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
Still Another Stay Application Heads to SCOTUS
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66893>
Posted onOctober 14, 2014 6:13 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66893>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
No, it's not from the5^th Circuit's ID decision
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141014-5th.pdf>. (Not
just yet, anyway.) It's from French v. McLean, the case challenging
Montana'sban on partisan judicial endorsements
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65492>. On October 1, the federal trial
courtdenied a preliminary injunction
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141006-french.pdf>, and
a fairly conservative Ninth Circuit paneldenied a stay
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141010-french.pdf>.
Sonow it's SCOTUS time
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141014-french.pdf>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66893&title=Still%20Another%20Stay%20Application%20Heads%20to%20SCOTUS&description=>
Posted injudicial elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
"CBS46 Tries To Find The "Missing" 48,000 Voter Registration Forms"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66891>
Posted onOctober 14, 2014 6:11 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66891>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
In Georgia
<http://www.peachpundit.com/2014/10/14/cbs46-tries-find-missing-48000-voter-registration-forms/>--
connected tothis story here <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66687>.
Weird, weird, weird.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66891&title=%E2%80%9CCBS46%20Tries%20To%20Find%20The%20%E2%80%9CMissing%E2%80%9D%2048%2C000%20Voter%20Registration%20Forms%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,voter registration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>
"Information You Need to Make Up Your Own Mind"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66889>
Posted onOctober 14, 2014 6:11 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66889>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
CLCblogs on the fight
<http://www.clcblog.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=577:information-you-need-to-make-up-your-own-mind>over
FCC regulation of broadcast stations disclosing the sponsors for their
political ads.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66889&title=%E2%80%9CInformation%20You%20Need%20to%20Make%20Up%20Your%20Own%20Mind%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
"Whites Are More Supportive of Voter ID Laws When Shown Photos of
Black People Voting" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66887>
Posted onOctober 14, 2014 6:10 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66887>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Wonkblog
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/14/whites-are-more-supportive-of-voter-id-laws-when-shown-photos-of-black-people-voting/>andVox
<http://www.vox.com/2014/10/14/6975013/voter-id-law-study-race-white-black-2014-election>follow
up on thestudy I mentioned here <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66837>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66887&title=%E2%80%9CWhites%20Are%20More%20Supportive%20of%20Voter%20ID%20Laws%20When%20Shown%20Photos%20of%20Black%20People%20Voting%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inThe Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
Breitbart Attributes Posner's ID Dissent to Angling for Court
Appointment <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66885>
Posted onOctober 14, 2014 6:10 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66885>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Fascinating
<http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/14/Posner-s-Voter-ID-Opinion-Relies-on-New-York-Times-Articles>.
Farfetched, but fascinating.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66885&title=Breitbart%20Attributes%20Posner%E2%80%99s%20ID%20Dissent%20to%20Angling%20for%20Court%20Appointment&description=>
Posted inelection law and constitutional law
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=55>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
AG Holder on Texas and Voter ID <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66883>
Posted onOctober 14, 2014 6:09 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66883>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Of course,this was from this morning
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/eric-holder-texas-ruling-vindicates-our-voting-rights-strategy>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66883&title=AG%20Holder%20on%20Texas%20and%20Voter%20ID&description=>
Posted inDepartment of Justice
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>,election administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
Reactions to the 5th Circuit's Voter ID Ruling
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66881>
Posted onOctober 14, 2014 6:09 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66881>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
From theBrennan Center
<http://www.brennancenter.org/press-release/texas-photo-id-appeals-court-wrong-overturn-id-decision>andCLC
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2639:october-14-2014-fifth-circuit-reinstates-confusing-texas-voter-id-law-for-november-election&catid=63:legal-center-press-releases&Itemid=61>,
and fromTexas's AG
<https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/oagnews/release.php?id=4876>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66881&title=Reactions%20to%20the%205th%20Circuit%E2%80%99s%20Voter%20ID%20Ruling&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,election law and constitutional law
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=55>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
Plaintiffs Taking Texas Voter ID Case to #SCOTUS
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66879>
Posted onOctober 14, 2014 3:24 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66879>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
So reports MSNBC
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/texas-voter-id-law-back-place>. My earlier
analysis of the Supreme Court chances arehere
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66869>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66879&title=Plaintiffs%20Taking%20Texas%20Voter%20ID%20Case%20to%20%23SCOTUS&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting
Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
The 5th Circuit's Concurrence <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66873>
Posted onOctober 14, 2014 3:08 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66873>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Rick just quoted <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66869>from Judge Costa's
concurrence in the 5th Circuit panel's order --- and I'd like to
highlight one part of that concurrence. Judge Costa says, citing cases
from Ohio and North Carolina, that "in two recent decisions, [the
Supreme Court] stayed injunctions issued based on findings that changes
in an election law were discriminatory."
That's true, but those cases involved different findings of
discrimination than those at issue in Texas. In this context,
"discrimination" is an ambiguous word. It could mean that a law simply
has a disparate statistical impact --- that it ends up affecting people
of some races more than others. It could mean that a law with a
disparate impact was generated in a context with danger signs of
perpetrating or perpetuating intentional discrimination, either directly
in the voting process or linked to the voting process. Or it could mean
that a law wasintendedto hurt voters because of their race: that it was
put in place at least in partbecause ofthe racial impact it would have.
Federal election law doesn't generally address policies in the first
category. The Voting Rights Actreaches policies in the second category
<http://redistricting.lls.edu/files/_%20Levitt%20responses%20to%20Franken%20QFRs.pdf#page=5>.
But the third category is particularly pernicious, and prohibited by
the constitution itself. According to the trial court in Texas, that
third category is responsible for the Texas ID law. The courts in Ohio
and North Carolina found only the lesser threshold of discrimination in
my "category two." That doesn't make such discrimination permissible.
But the Texas findings, right or wrong, are of another magnitude ...
and I think it's a mistake to conflate them all as equally "discriminatory."
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66873&title=The%205th%20Circuit%E2%80%99s%20Concurrence&description=>
Posted inelection law and constitutional law
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=55>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
Judge Randa Does It Again <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66874>
Posted onOctober 14, 2014 3:07 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66874>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Via theMilwaukee Journal Sentinel
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/judge-says-election-officials-prosecutor-cant-stop-campaign-collaboration-b99371223z1-279187051.html> comes
news that Judge Randahas issued an order and opinion
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/CRG-v-Barland-14C1222.pdf>allowing
coordination between an outside group and a campaign on First Amendment
grounds.
I expect this ruling will not stand. To begin with, the last time one of
Judge Randa's extremely deregulatory campaign finance opinions got to
the Seventh Circuit, the appellate courtsmacked down Judge Randa's
reading<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65859>of the First Amendment rules
for campaigns and coordination:
The Supreme Court has yet to determine what "coordination" means. Is
the scope of permissible regulation limited to groups that advocate
the election of particular candidates, or can government also
regulate coordination of contributions and speech about political
issues, when the speakers do not expressly advocate any person's
election? What if the speechimplies, rather than expresses, a
preference for a particular candidate's election? If regulation of
coordination about pure issue advocacy is permissible, how tight
must the link be between the politician's committee and the
advocacy group? Uncertainty is a powerful reason to leave this
litigation in state court, where it may meet its end as a matter
of state law without any need to resolve these
constitutional questions....
The Supreme Court regularly decides campaign finance issues by
closely divided votes. No opinion issued by the Supreme Court, or by
any court of appeals, establishes ("clearly" or otherwise) that the
First Amendment forbids regulation of coordination between campaign
committees and issue-advocacy groups---let alone that the First
Amendment forbids even an inquiry into that topic. The district
court broke new ground. Its views may be vindicated, but until that
day public officials enjoy the benefit of qualified immunity from
liability in damages.
Further, we might invokethe Purcell
principle<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/10/supreme_court_voting_rights_decisions_contradictions_in_wisconsin_ohio_north.html>even
here: Judge Randa is changing the rules very close to an election, with
the risk of confusion about what's legal and the risk of undermining the
interests in preventing corruption that undergird anti-coordination
requirements.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66874&title=Judge%20Randa%20Does%20It%20Again&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
Analysis: Texas Voter ID Decision: To #SCOTUS or Not?
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66869>
Posted onOctober 14, 2014 2:51 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66869>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
TheFifth Circuit's order
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141014-5th.pdf> in the
Texas voter id case relies on "the Purcell principle" that courts should
not change election rules in advance of the election. Althoughthis
outcome was expected <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66643>, this ruling
also shows,as I laid out in/Slate/,
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/10/supreme_court_voting_rights_decisions_contradictions_in_wisconsin_ohio_north.html> the
difficulty of applying the Purcell principle in the case where voters
face disenfranchisement.
Both the majority and the concurrence recognize the real risk that
voters will be disenfranchised by the ruling of the Court. The majority
flatly states: "The individual voter plaintiffs may be harmed by the
issuance of this stay.4 But we find that this harm does not outweigh the
other three factors." The concurrence is more ambivalent but feels bound
by the Purcell principle from the Supreme Court's recent OH, WI ,and TX
cases:
The district court issued a thorough order finding that the Texas voter
ID law is discriminatory. We should be extremely reluctant to have
an election
take place under a law that a district court has found, and that our
court may
find, is discriminatory. As always, however, we must follow the
dictates of the
Supreme Court. In two recent decisions, it stayed injunctions issued
based on
findings that changes in an election law were discriminatory. See North
Carolina v. League of Women Voters of N. Carolina, 14A358, 2014 WL
5026111
(U.S. Oct. 8, 2014); Husted v. Ohio State Conference of N.A.A.C.P.,
14A336,
2014 WL 4809069 (U.S. Sept. 29, 2014). It also lifted the Seventh
Circuit's stay
of a district court's order in place since the spring that enjoined
Wisconsin's
voter ID law. See Frank v. Walker, 14A352, 2014 WL 5039671 (U.S. Oct. 9,
2014). I agree with Judge Clement that the only constant principle
that can
be discerned from the Supreme Court's recent decisions in this area
is that its
concern about confusion resulting from court changes to election
laws close in
time to the election should carry the day in the stay analysis. The
injunction
in this case issued even closer in time to the upcoming election
than did the
two out of the Fourth and Sixth Circuits that the Supreme Court recently
stayed. On that limited basis, I agree a stay should issue.
Yet there are two potential differences here, which could suggest
applying the Purcell principle differently (as I suggested at /Slate/).
First, the risk of changing the rules close to the election should
perhaps be balanced with the risk of disenfranchisement. Second, there
is less of a problem of turning OFF a voter ID law than turning it ON.
Here, there may be some people who are asked for ID who should not be
if the ID law is put on hold. But that's a lower risk of
disenfranchisement than if the law, if discriminatory, remains in place.
The majority's response on this point was exceptionally weak. The
court wrote that the plaintiffs "fail to recognize that inconsistent
treatment of voters, even in just 'some isolated precincts,' raises a
significant constitutional concern, particularly when this disparate
treatment is virtually guaranteed by the late issuance of the
injunction." This is weak because there will be inconsistent treatment
of voters either way (including the disenfranchisement of voters who are
eligible to vote but who won't be because of an arguably discriminatory
voter id law). Justinmakes this point further
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66868>.
So if you are the DOJ or the private plaintiffs, do you go to the
Supreme Court for emergency relief on this basis? There's not much of a
downside at this point. The Court is almost certainly going to address
the merits of the equal protection and section 2 issues in either this
case, or the WI, NC or OH cases (or all of them). So there's no keeping
this issue out of the Court. Further, there are the reasons I've given
above for distinguishing these cases under the Purcell principle. It is
a longshot that they will be acceptable to the conservative 5 Justice
majority of the Court, but there's little harm in trying. But in this
one, there's a greater chance of a 5-4 split than in these other cases.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66869&title=Analysis%3A%20Texas%20Voter%20ID%20Decision%3A%20To%20%23SCOTUS%20or%20Not%3F&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>
Quick Reaction to 5th Circuit ID Order
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66868>
Posted onOctober 14, 2014 2:46 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66868>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Essentially, all the marbles ofthis 5th Circuit order
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141014-5th.pdf>come
down to "it's too close to the election to stop the law from going into
effect, because pollworkers will be confused."
It's important to recognize that the court of appeals did not disturb
the district court's findings that some individuals do not have and will
not likely be able to timely get the documents in question. But the
panel is particularly concerned about inconsistent application of the
new ID rule if the district court's opinion is allowed to take effect.
That is, the court is concerned that some pollworkers may demand the
restricted set of ID documents in the new law (preventing some
individuals without the narrow set of ID from voting anything other than
a provisional ballot), and some pollworkers may demand the less
restricted set of the old law.
So instead, the court makes it legal for all pollworkers to demand the
more restricted set (preventing all individuals without the right ID
from voting a valid ballot at all).
Or, translated even further: if we let the district court's order stand,
some people without the right ID will be able to vote, and some won't.
And if we stay the district court, all people without the right ID
won't be able to vote. And in elections, "all" is better than "some."
To me, at least, that's afoolish consistency
<http://www.bartleby.com/100/420.47.html>. As I've explained
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66613>, it's one thing to stop
last-minute changes when the impact is less dire for those affected,
another to stop last-minute changes when the change is new and
unfamiliar, and still another to stop last-minute changes when the
reason for the change isn't clear. But after a full trial and 147 pages
of both facts and rationale, returning the state to rules that had been
in place for years, and when the state had already started tocut back on
offering the IDs now required <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66843>?
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66868&title=Quick%20Reaction%20to%205th%20Circuit%20ID%20Order&description=>
Posted invoter id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
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>
--
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/20141014/8bf5e810/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/20141014/8bf5e810/attachment.png>
View list directory