[EL] ELB News and Commentary 10/20/14

Sun Oct 19 20:45:44 PDT 2014

    "Voter-ID Actions Push Fight Past November; Supreme Court Lets Texas
    Apply Restrictions for Midterms, but Legality Hasn't Been Decided"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67136>

Posted onOctober 19, 2014 8:42 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67136>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Brent Kendall 
reports<http://online.wsj.com/articles/voter-id-actions-push-fight-past-november-1413760050>for 
WSJ.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D67136&title=%E2%80%9CVoter-ID%20Actions%20Push%20Fight%20Past%20November%3B%20Supreme%20Court%20Lets%20Texas%20Apply%20Restrictions%20for%20Midterms%2C%20but%20Legality%20Hasn%E2%80%99t%20Been%20Decided%E2%80%9D&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>,Voting Rights Act 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>

    NYT/Retro Report Looks Back at Watergate and Money in Campaigns
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67134>

Posted onOctober 19, 2014 8:40 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67134>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Here 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/us/the-cost-of-campaigns.html?ref=politics>.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D67134&title=NYT%2FRetro%20Report%20Looks%20Back%20at%20Watergate%20and%20Money%20in%20Campaigns&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

    Justice Ginsburg Tells Nina Totenberg SCOTUS Likely Would Have
    Granted Same Sex Marriage Review If Circuit Split
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67125>

Posted onOctober 19, 2014 5:16 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67125>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

At the 92nd Street Y event <http://new.livestream.com/92Y/SupremeCourt>:

"As of now, all the Courts of Appeal agree, so there is no crying need 
for us to step in."

When Nina asked if there is a split and the Court takes a case if it 
would be feasible to go back to same sex marriage being illegal after 
all of the decisions that have allowed it now in so many states, Justice 
Ginsburg demurred: "I can't give an opinion on that."

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D67125&title=Justice%20Ginsburg%20Tells%20Nina%20Totenberg%20SCOTUS%20Likely%20Would%20Have%20Granted%20Same%20Sex%20Marriage%20Review%20If%20Circuit%20Split&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

    Justice Ginsburg Tells Nina Totenberg About 5 AM Texas Voter ID
    Decision <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67123>

Posted onOctober 19, 2014 5:11 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67123>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

 From this event<http://new.livestream.com/92Y/SupremeCourt>at the 92nd 
Street Y [my transcription, and there could be errors]:

    *Nina Totenberg*: Justice Ginsburg, you were up until ... Friday
    night/Saturday morning, writing a passionate dissent in the Texas
    voter id case. Just to let people in the audience know, this was a
    procedural question in some measure. And you can note a dissent in
    those kinds of cases and not write and it is fairly common for that
    to happen. But you wrote; you were joined by Justices Kagan and
    Sotomayor. So why did you write and why did it take until 5 in the
    morning?

    *Justice Ginsburg*: Why till 5 in the morning? We didn't get the
    last filing from Texas until Friday morning and then the Circuit
    Justice [Justice Scalia in this case---/Ed./] as you know has to
    write a memo. And that came around some time in the middle of the
    afternoon. So there wasn't much time to write the dissent. I had
    written a dissent in the North Carolina voting case, voting rights
    case. This one was... I would say it was very well-reasoned. You
    called it passionate.

    *Nina Totenberg*: The point you were making...to explain a fact of
    law here is that in 2006 the Supreme Court issued a decision that
    basically said we try not to disturb what's going on in an election
    right before an election because people will get confused. And you
    said you did not think that applied here. Why?

    First this case was unlike others because it had gone through a
    complete 9 day trial, reams of evidence, and an excellent decision
    written by the district court. This was a new system for Texas. From
    2003-2013, they have a voter id that was reasonable. There were many
    things you could present. The new law cut back drastically on that.
    There had never been a federal election held under the new law.
    There had been local elections with very small turnout. So the poll
    watchers [workers?-/Ed/] were more familiar with old procedur. So I
    didn't think this case fell into the mold of we can't disturb an
    election. There had been very little in the way of educational
    efforts, so that people knew what the new law required, so that the
    poll watchers would know. So I thought that the old system would
    involve less disruption than this
    never-done-in-a-federal-election-before [system].

You can readmy /Slate 
/piece<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/10/ginsburg_s_dissent_in_texas_voter_id_law_supreme_court_order.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top>about 
this decision and Justice Ginsburg's dissent.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D67123&title=Justice%20Ginsburg%20Tells%20Nina%20Totenberg%20About%205%20AM%20Texas%20Voter%20ID%20Decision&description=>
Posted inElections Clause <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>,Supreme 
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting Wars 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,Voting Rights Act 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>

    "SCOTUS to Texas: Go Forth and Discriminate Against Your Citizens
    Starting Monday" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67121>

Posted onOctober 19, 2014 4:12 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67121>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Liz Kennedy blogs. 
<http://www.demos.org/blog/10/19/14/scotus-texas-go-forth-and-discriminate-against-your-citizens-starting-monday>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D67121&title=%E2%80%9CSCOTUS%20to%20Texas%3A%20Go%20Forth%20and%20Discriminate%20Against%20Your%20Citizens%20Starting%20Monday%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting 
Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,Voting Rights Act 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>

    "Analysis: High court action on Texas ID law shows mixed record on
    voting rights" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67119>

Posted onOctober 19, 2014 2:41 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67119>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

David Savage writes 
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-supreme-court-texas-voter-id-20141016-story.html#page=1>for 
the LA Times.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D67119&title=%E2%80%9CAnalysis%3A%20High%20court%20action%20on%20Texas%20ID%20law%20shows%20mixed%20record%20on%20voting%20rights%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting 
Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

    "In Judge's Footnote, a Heavy Slap at Texas' Past"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67117>

Posted onOctober 19, 2014 2:34 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67117>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Ross Ramsey 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/us/in-judges-footnote-a-heavy-slap-at-texas-past.html?_r=0>:

    Strange things show up in the footnotes of federal court rulings.

    Consider this one in a ruling by a federal judge in Corpus Christi,
    Tex., that the state's voter photo ID law is unconstitutional
    <http://www.texastribune.org/2014/10/09/federal-judge-rules-texas-voter-id-law-unconstitut/>:
    "The Texas Legislature did not vote to ratify the 24th Amendment's
    abolition of the poll tax until the 2009 legislative session," and
    "the process has not been completed and the measure last went to the
    Secretary of State."

    That came up early in an excoriating 147-page ruling
    <http://s3.amazonaws.com/static.texastribune.org/media/documents/20141009-TXID-Opinion.pdf>from
    United States District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos that the state's
    voter photo ID law, also known as Senate Bill 14
    <https://www.texastribune.org/session/82R/bills/SB14/>, "creates an
    unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible
    discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and
    was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose. The
    court further holds that SB 14 constitutes an unconstitutional poll
    tax."

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D67117&title=%E2%80%9CIn%20Judge%E2%80%99s%20Footnote%2C%20a%20Heavy%20Slap%20at%20Texas%E2%80%99%20Past%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>

    Geidner Talks to Totenberg and Denniston on the 5am #SCOTUS Texas ID
    Order Release <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67115>

Posted onOctober 19, 2014 2:33 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67115>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Here, 
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/texas-voter-id-law-will-be-in-effect-this-election-supreme-c#udnclw>at 
Buzzfeed.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D67115&title=Geidner%20Talks%20to%20Totenberg%20and%20Denniston%20on%20the%205am%20%23SCOTUS%20Texas%20ID%20Order%20Release&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting 
Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

-- 
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141019/0372bfa3/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/20141019/0372bfa3/attachment.png>