[EL] Citizens United

Tue Oct 14 19:27:29 PDT 2014

"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."

Or, as we sometimes say around the bar, "like every other movie." (Including every other movie that seeks to or does shape public opinion on political candidates and issues, e.g. "The Roosevelts," "Fahrenheit 9/11," "Roger and Me," "Gasland," "Gasland II," "Promised Land," "PT 109," "The Grapes of Wrath," "Bowling for Columbine," "2016: Obama's America," "Dr. Strangelove," etc.). It just sounds so scary to say "without disclosing its donors." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfthzU3V4zo

Bradley A. Smith

Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault

   Professor of Law

Capital University Law School

303 E. Broad St.

Columbus, OH 43215

614.236.6317

http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx

________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Justin Levitt [levittj at lls.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 9:35 PM
To: law-election at UCI.EDU
Subject: [EL] more news 10/14

Note to Rick: you're welcome back from "vacation" any time.  :)

KY Electioneering Ban Struck Down<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66913>
Posted on October 14, 2014 6:18 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66913> by Justin Levitt<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>

Still more news from the courts.  Kentucky’s ban on electioneering was struck 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 defendants settled<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 provision enjoined<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141014-russell-injunction.pdf>), I think this 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 a preview 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 – and more 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 in election 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 on October 14, 2014 6:16 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66911> by Justin 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 today ordered<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’s not 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.

The Denver 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 in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“My One Minute of Campaign Finance Fame”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66909>
Posted on October 14, 2014 6:15 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66909> by Justin 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 in campaign 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 on October 14, 2014 6:15 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66907> by Justin Levitt<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>

The NY 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 at outside 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, and doesn’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 in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
Still More on Outside Spending<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66905>
Posted on October 14, 2014 6:14 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66905> by Justin Levitt<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>

In Superconnected 2014<http://www.citizen.org/public-citizen-superconnected-2014-outside-groups-report>, Public Citizen reports<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 in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“FEC Rulemakings Roil Agency, Critics”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66903>
Posted on October 14, 2014 6:14 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66903> by Justin Levitt<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>

Eliza’s latest Rules 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 in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“In Wisconsin, Dark Money Got a Mining Company What It Wanted”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66901>
Posted on October 14, 2014 6:14 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66901> by Justin Levitt<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>

ProPublica and the Daily Beast track 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 in campaign 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 on October 14, 2014 6:13 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66893> by Justin Levitt<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>

No, it’s not from the 5th 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’s ban on partisan judicial endorsements<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65492>.  On October 1, the federal trial court denied a preliminary injunction<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141006-french.pdf>, and a fairly conservative Ninth Circuit panel denied 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 in judicial 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 on October 14, 2014 6:11 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66891> by Justin Levitt<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>

In Georgia<http://www.peachpundit.com/2014/10/14/cbs46-tries-find-missing-48000-voter-registration-forms/> – connected to this 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 in election 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 on October 14, 2014 6:11 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66889> by Justin Levitt<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>

CLC blogs 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 in campaign 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 on October 14, 2014 6:10 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66887> by Justin 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/> and Vox<http://www.vox.com/2014/10/14/6975013/voter-id-law-study-race-white-black-2014-election> follow up on the study 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 in The 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 on October 14, 2014 6:10 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66885> by Justin 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 in election 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 on October 14, 2014 6:09 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66883> by Justin 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 in Department 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 on October 14, 2014 6:09 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66881> by Justin Levitt<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>

>From the Brennan Center<http://www.brennancenter.org/press-release/texas-photo-id-appeals-court-wrong-overturn-id-decision> and CLC<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 from Texas’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 in election 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 on October 14, 2014 3:24 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66879> by Rick 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 are here<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 in Supreme 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 on October 14, 2014 3:08 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66873> by Justin 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 was intended to hurt voters because of their race: that it was put in place at least in part because of the 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 in 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>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
Judge Randa Does It Again<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66874>
Posted on October 14, 2014 3:07 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66874> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Via the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/judge-says-election-officials-prosecutor-cant-stop-campaign-collaboration-b99371223z1-279187051.html> comes news that Judge Randa has 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 court smacked 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 invoke 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> 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 in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
Analysis: Texas Voter ID Decision: To #SCOTUS or Not?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66869>
Posted on October 14, 2014 2:51 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66869> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Fifth 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. Although this 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). Justin makes 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 in election 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 on October 14, 2014 2:46 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66868> by Justin Levitt<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>

Essentially, all the marbles of this 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 a foolish 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 to cut 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 in voter id<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
BREAKING: 5th Circuit Stays Voter ID Order<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66865>
Posted on October 14, 2014 2:15 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66865> by Justin Levitt<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>

And the wait is over, for now.  The 5th Circuit just 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 in election 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<mailto: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/20141015/c13ba33c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: share_save_171_16.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141015/c13ba33c/attachment.png>