[EL] a summary 10/18
Justin Levitt
levittj at lls.edu
Sat Oct 18 14:55:22 PDT 2014
Where We Stand <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67086>
Posted onOctober 18, 2014 2:54 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67086>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
A wrapup of what's where in the world of prominent election-related
litigation after the events of the last week:
* AR photo ID law:not in place <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66951>.
Permanentlystruck down
<http://posting.arktimes.com/media/pdf/voter_id_opinion.pdf>by AR
Supreme Court 10/15.
* TX photo ID law:in place, for now
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67060>. Struck down
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141009-TXID-Opinion.pdf>by
a federal trial court on 10/9, but that decision wasstayed
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141014-5th.pdf>by
the 5^th Circuit 10/14. After the election, the 5^th Circuit will
address an appeal on the merits.
* WI photo ID law:not in place, for now
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66998>. Struck down
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/frankvwalker.pdf>by a
federal trial court 4/29, andreversed
<http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2014/D10-06/C:14-2059:J:Easterbrook:aut:T:fnOp:N:1429869:S:0>by
the 7^th Circuit on 10/6, but 7^th Circuitstayed its own mandate
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141016-7th-cir.pdf>on
10/15. After the election, the law will be back in place absent
SCOTUS activity.
* NC omnibus law:in place, for now
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66538>. A federal trial courtdenied
a preliminary injunction
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/nc-prelim-ruling.pdf>8/8;
the 4^th Circuitreversed
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/NC-Opinion.pdf>10/1
with respect to same-day registration and out-of-precinct ballot
cutbacks, and SCOTUSstayed
<https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1311436/14a358-nc.pdf>the
4^th Circuit order 10/8. After the election, the case will proceed
toward trial on all of the claims, but same-day registration and the
ability to count out-of-precinct ballots**will**be restored pending
trial.
* OH early voting cutback:in place, for now
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66036>. A federal trial courtgranted
a preliminary injunction
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/072_order_granting_pi.pdf>for
the 2014 election on 9/4; the 6^th Circuitaffirmed
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/6th-early.pdf>9/24,
but SCOTUSstayed
<http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Ohio-order-9-29-14.pdf>the
6^th Circuit order 9/29. After the election, the case will proceed
toward trial.
* GA voter registrations:who knows
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67080>? The New Georgia Project says
there are more than50,000 forms that have not been processed
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66687>; the Secretary of State
saysthere are not
<http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2014/10/16/3360449_brian-kemp-fires-back-at-frivolous.html?rh=1>.
A hearing is scheduled in state court late next week.
* KY electioneering law:not in place, for now
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66913>. On 10/14, a federal trial
courtstruck down
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141014-russell-order.pdf>the
ban on electioneering anywhere outside of the room where voting
occurs. The case is currently up on appeal.
* MS Senate race:still waiting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66267>for a ruling from the
Mississippi Supreme Court about Chris McDaniel's challenge to Thad
Cochran in the primaries.
* NC early voting site on ASU campus:not in place, for now
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67082>. On 10/13, a state trial
courtrequired
<http://www.wral.com/judge-orders-county-to-provide-early-voting-site-on-app-state-campus/14074008/>that
the site be moved back to the Appalachian State campus, but an
appellate courtstayed
<http://www.wral.com/asset/news/state/nccapitol/2014/10/17/14089934/ASU_COA_Temp_stay.pdf>that
ruling on 10/17; the fight is now proceeding to the state Supreme Court.
* WI coordination ban:not in place, for now
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66874>. On 10/14, a federal trial
court temporarily (and ex parte)enjoined
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/CRG-v-Barland-14C1222.pdf>enforcement
of state rules against coordinating spending with candidates, for
anything that is not express advocacy of electoral victory or
defeat. There will be further proceedings on a motion for
preliminary injunction (and perhaps an appeal of the judge's order,
though there's no appeal docketed yet).
* CT Dems' mailer using federal funds:under attack
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67070>. The Connecticut GOPfiled a
lawsuit
<http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/upload/2014/10/RPC_Summons_and_Complaint.pdf>on
10/17, protesting the Democrats' use of federal funds to support a
state campaign.
* CO disclosure for Citizens United movie:not in place, for now
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66911>. A federal trial courtdenied a
preliminary injunction
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/cu-disclosure-pi.pdf>9/22,
but the 10^th Circuitordered
<https://www.scribd.com/doc/242991080/10th-Circuit-Order-in-Citizens-United-v-Gessler>on
10/14 that Citizens United needn't disclose donors involved in
making the movie (but would have to disclose donors for ads about
the movie) pending the appeal. After the election, the case will
proceed both on the appeal of the denial of a preliminary
injunction, and toward trial on the merits.
* CO disclosure for small nonprofit:not in place
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66752>. On 10/10, a federal trial
courtenjoined
<https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6BBPNUKUvKSNDFMc0pacUNDZXdPenMwLUxPaTFvMXlNaUhV/preview?pli=1>state
reporting and disclosure requirements as applied to a small
nonprofit seeking to distribute an advocacy piece. There has not
(yet) been an appeal.
* NH disclosure for push-polling:in place, but only for state
candidates <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66976>. The NH Supreme
Courtdecided
<http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/csp/cms/sites/Telegraph/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=szVRRulhARTzltonYqDc9oe2GzjtRcJecdWQQGgf_fe6NVP1tpFnob$kndF19Ps$4Aw$6wU9GSUcqtd9hs3TFeZCn0vq69IZViKeqDZhqNLziaXiKG0K_ms4C2keQo54&CONTENTTYPE=application/pdf&CONTENTDISPOSITION=push%20poll%20ruling.pdf>10/15
that the law was preempted as applied to federal candidates.
* MT ban on partisan judicial endorsements:in place, for now
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67058>. A federal trial courtdenied
a preliminary injunction
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141006-french.pdf>10/1;
both the9^th Circuit
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141010-french.pdf>andSCOTUS
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101714zr1.pdf>denied
a stay. After the election, the case will proceed toward trial.
* IN limited judicial nominations (Marion County): in place, for now
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66622>. A federal trial courtstruck
down
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141009-marion-judge.pdf>Marion
County's system of limited nominations for judicial seats, allowing
each party to nominate candidates for only some positions. But then
the judge stayed the order pending an appeal. After the election,
an appeal (filed 10/17) will proceed on the merits.
* AR language on referenda:up in the air
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66731>. Alawsuit
<http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/case-cv-2014-1846-6.pdf>has
been filed in state court to determine whether a "for" vote is a
vote in favor of an enacted ordinance, or in favor of its repeal.
* And that's just for this election. That doesn't include the ongoing
litigation aboutproof of citizenship and the federal registration
form
<http://electionlawblog.org/%20the%20Alabama%20case%20touches%20on%20the%20appropriate%20use%20of%20race%20in%20state%20decision-making,%20and%20the%20Arizona%20case%20touches%20on%20the%20appropriate%20regulation%20of%20federal%20elections%20by%20any%20body%20other%20than%20a%20state%20legislature.>,electronic
voting machines
<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/Banfieldv.Cortes.php>,judicial
solicitation rules
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/williams-yulee-v-the-florida-bar/>,federal
contractor contribution limitations
<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/WagnerVFEC.php>,
and the continuing fights overredistricting
<http://redistricting.lls.edu/>, including a SCOTUS case onAlabama
redistricting <http://redistricting.lls.edu/cases.php#AL>, and
another onArizona redistricting
<http://redistricting.lls.edu/cases-AZ.php#AZ>. Except that the
redistricting cases aren't just about redistricting at all:
theAlabama case
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/alabama-democratic-conference-v-alabama/>touches
on the appropriate use of race in state decision-making, and
theArizona case
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/arizona-state-legislature-v-arizona-independent-redistricting-commission/>touches
on the appropriate regulation of federal elections by any body other
than a state legislature.
All caught up? Welcome back, Rick!
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D67086&title=Where%20We%20Stand&description=>
Posted inThe Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
--
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/20141018/fe5eacf6/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/20141018/fe5eacf6/attachment.png>
View list directory