[EL] 7th Cir. voter id opinions/more news

Tue Sep 30 14:44:15 PDT 2014

    Breaking: 7th Circuit Issues Opinions in Earlier 5-5 Split on WI
    Voter ID Law: Next Stop #SCOTUS? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66102>

Posted onSeptember 30, 2014 2:12 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66102>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

You can read the opinionsat this link 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/en-banc-order_2yRG.pdf>. 
Here are my thoughts:

1. The majority opinion,authored by the three judges 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65399>on the original panel which lifted 
the stay, strikes me as disingenuous. The biggest flaw is the idea that 
voters had years to get their id's, so it is no fault now of the state 
if they don't have them. To begin with, the law had been put on hold, 
and a federal judge had determined the law was likely unconstitutional 
and a violation of the Voting Rights Act. Why should individuals who 
lacked the right narrow kind of ID necessary for the law have gone out 
to get it when there was a good chance (as predicted by a federal judge) 
that the law would never be implemented? Further, until nearly the time 
the 7th Circuit considered the case, the procedures put in place by the 
state of Wisconsin to get the id's were found by the state supreme Court 
to be unconstitutional. The WI Supreme Court, by judicial fiat, changed 
the rules just a few weeks before the 7th Circuit order. And then the 
state changed them again. So there could not have been years to get the IDs.

2.The opinion is also disingenuous in saying the law is just like the 
Indiana law upheld by the Supreme Court in the 2008 Crawford case. Put 
aside the fact that Crawford did not involve a Voting Rights Act 
challenge, which imposes a different standard. Wisconsin's law is also 
stricter (as the dissenters today point out, Indiana's law allowed for 
an indigent voter to file an affidavit of indigency to get around the 
law and WI voters cannot). Further, the record in the Indiana case 
showed no evidence of actual voters disenfranchised, but the record here 
did show actual disenfranchised voters who would have a hard time 
getting the IDs under state law.

3. The opinion is also disingenuous in faulting the law's challengers 
for not presenting evidence to the 7th Circuit of the number of people 
disenfranchised by the law. How could that be? The trial court found 
that up to 300,000 registered voters don't have the right id yet. That 
finding, unless clearly erroneous, should be binding on the trial court. 
Indeed, the dissenters point out that the state of WI conceded that 10% 
of the voters lacked the right ID:

    [The state of WI] brazenly responds that the district court found
    that "more than 90% of Wisconsin's registered voters already have a
    qualifying ID" and can vote and that "the voter ID law will have
    little impact on the vast majority of voters." But the right to vote
    is not the province of just the majority. It is not just held by
    those who have cars and so already have driver's licenses and by
    those who travel and so already have passports. The right to vote is
    also held, and held equally, by all citizens of voting age. It
    simply cannot be the answer to say that 90% of registered voters can
    still vote. To say that is to accept the disenfranchisement of 10%
    of a state's registered voters; for the state to take this position
    is shocking.

4. Aside from what the 7th Circuit (or Supreme Court) will ultimately do 
on the merits of the constitutional and Voting Rights Act claims in the 
case (and I'mskeptical <http://t.co/qfQifjt9jR>of ultimate success), the 
voter id law should not be implemented in such a haphazard way risking 
the disenfranchisement of thousands of voters. This is the 
/Purcell/principle which the Supreme Court has recognized, and which 
today's 7th Circuit dissenters rely upon. The dissenters make a 
compelling case for the Supreme Court to get involved. But, as I 
said<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66070>this morning,  the longer the 
delay, the less compelling the /Purcell/ changing the rules argument in 
midstream becomes. I've explained why I think a stay request has (would 
have had?) a decent chance here 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65892> and my Slate piece 
<http://t.co/qfQifjt9jR> from yesterday puts Wisconsin into broader 
perspective in the heat up of the voting wars.

[This post has been updated.]

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66102&title=Breaking%3A%207th%20Circuit%20Issues%20Opinions%20in%20Earlier%205-5%20Split%20on%20WI%20Voter%20ID%20Law%3A%20Next%20Stop%20%23SCOTUS%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>

    "California Governor Signs Bill, Easing Rules for New Parties to Get
    on Ballot and Existing Parties to Remain on the Ballot"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66100>

Posted onSeptember 30, 2014 2:05 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66100>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

BAN reports. 
<http://www.ballot-access.org/2014/09/california-governor-signs-bill-easing-rules-for-new-parties-to-get-on-ballot-and-existing-parties-to-remain-on-the-ballot/>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66100&title=%E2%80%9CCalifornia%20Governor%20Signs%20Bill%2C%20Easing%20Rules%20for%20New%20Parties%20to%20Get%20on%20Ballot%20and%20Existing%20Parties%20to%20Remain%20on%20the%20Ballot%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>,third 
parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=47>

    "Online Registration Now Available to Nearly Half of Eligible
    Voters" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66098>

Posted onSeptember 30, 2014 1:07 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66098>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Pew Data Dispatch. 
<http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/about/news-room/news/2014/09/30/online-registration-now-available-to-nearly-half-of-eligible-voters>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66098&title=%E2%80%9COnline%20Registration%20Now%20Available%20to%20Nearly%20Half%20of%20Eligible%20Voters%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,voter registration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>,voting technology 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40>

    Miller Center Campaign Finance Debate to Air on PBS
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66096>

Posted onSeptember 30, 2014 1:06 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66096>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The debaters are Vik Amar, Ann Ravel, Brad Smith, and Sean McCucheon.

Watch. <http://millercenter.org/debates/episode/campaign-finance>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66096&title=Miller%20Center%20Campaign%20Finance%20Debate%20to%20Air%20on%20PBS&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

    Undisclosed Contributions Funding Lots of 2014 Ads
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66094>

Posted onSeptember 30, 2014 1:04 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66094>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Wesleyan Media Project: 
<http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/2014/09/30/gop-groups-keeping-senate-contests-close/>

    A Wesleyan Media Project analysis, in partnership with the Center
    for Responsive Politics, reveals that an estimated $233 million has
    been spent by outside groups in House, Senate and gubernatorial
    races this election cycle, starting January 1, 2013; $90 million of
    that is in the form of dark money---money whose sponsors do not have
    to be disclosed by law (Table 10).  Just in the past two weeks,
    groups have spent an estimated $33 million, with $10 million in dark
    money spending.

    	Table 10: Estimated Spending by Disclosure Type

    	Spending
    Last Two Weeks 	Spending
    2013-14 Cycle

    	Dark Money 	10.07 M 	90.56 M

    	Partial Disclosure 	2.46 M 	5.93 M

    	Full Disclosure 	20.52 M 	136.51 M

    	Total 	33.04 M 	233.01 M

    	Figures in the second column are from September 12, 2014, to
    September 25, 2014, while figures in the third column are from
    January 1, 2013, to September 25, 2014. Numbers include broadcast
    television.  Dollar amounts reflect estimated cost of airtime.
    CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar Media/CMAG with analysis by the
    Wesleyan Media Project. Disclosure information from the Center for
    Responsive Politics.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66094&title=Undisclosed%20Contributions%20Funding%20Lots%20of%202014%20Ads&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

    "Independent spending among conservatives shifted from strongly
    favoring the anti-establishment right in 2012 to favoring
    establishment conservatives in 2014?
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66092>

Posted onSeptember 30, 2014 12:28 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66092>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Interesting findings 
<http://cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/14-09-30/Primaries_Analyzed_at_CFI-Brookings_Conference.aspx>coming 
fromCFI-Brookings primaries conference 
<http://www.brookings.edu/events/2014/09/30-2014-primaries-future-american-politics>.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66092&title=%E2%80%9CIndependent%20spending%20among%20conservatives%20shifted%20from%20strongly%20favoring%20the%20anti-establishment%20right%20in%202012%20to%20favoring%20establishment%20conservatives%20in%202014%E2%80%B3&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,political 
parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,political polarization 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>

    "Voters Overwhelmingly Favor Clearer Political Activity Rules for
    Nonprofits" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66090>

Posted onSeptember 30, 2014 12:24 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66090>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Press release 
<http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/pressroomredirect.cfm?ID=4300>: 
"Voters overwhelmingly believe that clear rules defining political 
activity for nonprofits is important, according to a bipartisan poll 
<http://www.citizen.org/documents/Memo%20IRSrulemaking%20f%20093014.pdf> released 
today. The poll was commissioned by Public Citizen, which released it in 
conjunction with the Hudson Institute's Bradley Center for Philanthropy 
& Civic Renewal as part of its mission to be a forum for conversations 
on important issues in the nonprofit sector."

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66090&title=%E2%80%9CVoters%20Overwhelmingly%20Favor%20Clearer%20Political%20Activity%20Rules%20for%20Nonprofits%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme 
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

    Tokaji: "An Ominous Supreme Cout Decision"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66088>

Posted onSeptember 30, 2014 11:39 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66088>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Dan<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/election-law/article/?article=12939>on 
yesterday's decision:

    It's still possible that the Supreme Court will decide the Ohio case
    on the merits. If it does, further cutbacks to voting rights --
    under the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act -- are likely. On
    this point, I quite agree with Rick Hasen
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66036> (despite our disagreement on
    the merits in /Husted v. NAACP/). Even if the Court doesn't rule
    take the Ohio case, it could decide a case coming out of North
    Carolina
    <http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/LOWVv.Howard.php>,
    Texas
    <http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/VeaseyV.Perry.php>,
    Wisconsin
    <http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/Frank.v.Walker.php>, or
    some other state. Voting rights advocates should be concerned, and
    surely are, about the prospect of Supreme Court review in any of
    these cases.

    Back in 2008, when the Supreme Court upheld Indiana's voter ID law
    in /Crawford v. Marion County Election Board/, I said: "it could
    have been worse
    <http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/2008_04_01_equalvote_archive.html>."
    Although I disagreed with the outcome of that case, the balancing
    test articulated by a majority of justices in that case was
    reasonable, allowing the burdens of voting restrictions to be
    weighed against the benefits to the states. Lower courts have used
    that standard to stop the worst instances of partisan manipulation
    of voting rules, in Ohio and elsewhere. Yesterday's ruling is reason
    to fear that the Supreme Court may tighten the screws on the lower
    courts, making it more difficult for them to protect the right to vote.

    In other words, it could get worse.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66088&title=Tokaji%3A%20%E2%80%9CAn%20Ominous%20Supreme%20Cout%20Decision%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>

    "As Election Nears, Voting Laws Still Unclear In Some States"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66085>

Posted onSeptember 30, 2014 10:30 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66085>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

I  missedthis Pam Fessler 
NPR<http://www.npr.org/2014/09/24/351246991/as-election-nears-voting-laws-still-unclear-in-some-states>report 
from last week.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66085&title=%E2%80%9CAs%20Election%20Nears%2C%20Voting%20Laws%20Still%20Unclear%20In%20Some%20States%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

    Sounds Like Federal Campaign Contractor Ban Could Fall, But....
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66082>

Posted onSeptember 30, 2014 10:24 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66082>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

according tothis BLT 
report<http://www.nationallawjournal.com/legaltimes/blog-of-legal-times/id=1202671848338/Full-DC-Circuit-Weighs-Contractors-Political-Contributions?mcode=1383246464404&curindex=0>from 
today's DC Circuit en banc hearing [update:MORE 
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/09/dc-circuit-skeptical-on-contractor-donation-ban-196353.html>from 
Josh Gerstein], the reason it could fall is because it is so porous as 
to not accomplish its goal.  That would be a better outcome, from the 
point of view of salvaging what remains of contribution limits, than a 
holding which strikes down the ban as too restrictive of the First 
Amendment rights of government contractors. A snippet:

    But Tatel and his colleagues raised concerns about the different
    ways individual contractors could circumvent the ban. Contractors
    were allowed to hold political fundraisers and bundle contributions,
    for example, or could form an LLC and then be free to give as a
    corporate contributor.

    Tatel questioned the FEC's lawyer---Kevin Deeley, acting associate
    general counsel for litigation---over whether those alternatives
    raised questions about what the ban was actually accomplishing.

    "Congress has attacked the most dangerous exchange," Deeley replied,
    referring to an individual contractor making a direct contribution.

    Judge Patricia Millett said she found it hard to reconcile the
    government's claim that the ban was necessary with the fact that
    there was "an easy way out." Judge Cornelia Pillard raised another
    concern about the ban's possible "underinclusiveness"---that
    would-be contractors could make contributions in anticipation of
    applying for a contract, since the ban only kicked in once contract
    negotiations began.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66082&title=Sounds%20Like%20Federal%20Campaign%20Contractor%20Ban%20Could%20Fall%2C%20But%E2%80%A6.&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

    "Restricting Voter Registration Drives"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66080>

Posted onSeptember 30, 2014 10:08 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66080>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

New report from Project Vote. 
<http://www.projectvote.org/images/publications/RESTRICTING-VR-DRIVES-POLICY-PAPER-SEPT-2014.pdf>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66080&title=%E2%80%9CRestricting%20Voter%20Registration%20Drives%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter registration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>

    "National group forms PAC in Nevada to help Marshall for SOS"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66078>

Posted onSeptember 30, 2014 10:07 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66078>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Ralston reports. 
<http://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/national-group-forms-pac-nevada-help-marshall-sos>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66078&title=%E2%80%9CNational%20group%20forms%20PAC%20in%20Nevada%20to%20help%20Marshall%20for%20SOS%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

    "Democrats Are Spending More on the Ground in Key Senate Races"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66076>

Posted onSeptember 30, 2014 9:24 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66076>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT's "The UpShot" reports. 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/upshot/democrats-are-spending-more-on-the-ground-in-key-senate-races.html?_r=1&abt=0002&abg=1>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66076&title=%E2%80%9CDemocrats%20Are%20Spending%20More%20on%20the%20Ground%20in%20Key%20Senate%20Races%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

    "How the Supreme Court will continue helping GOP game elections"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66074>

Posted onSeptember 30, 2014 9:20 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66074>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Paul Waldman writes 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/09/30/how-the-supreme-court-will-continue-helping-gop-game-elections/>at 
The Plum Line. Imostly agree <http://t.co/qfQifjt9jR> on the bottom line 
of what the Court will likely do, although I think that a stay of the 
7th Cir. voter id ruling immediately implementing the law for this 
election would have a decent chance of reversal (orwould have 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66070>).

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66074&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20will%20continue%20helping%20GOP%20game%20elections%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

    Beth Garrett Next President of Cornell
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66072>

Posted onSeptember 30, 2014 9:05 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66072>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Big news: 
<http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2014/09/elizabeth-garrett-usc-provost-named-president-cornell> Election 
law/legislation professor and current USC Provost Beth Garrett is the 
new President of Cornell University.  Congrats to both!

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66072&title=Beth%20Garrett%20Next%20President%20of%20Cornell&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

-- 
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/20140930/723c6470/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/20140930/723c6470/attachment.png>