[EL] ELB News and Commentary 4/29/15

Tue Apr 28 20:38:19 PDT 2015

    Listen to the Oral Argument in 5th Circuit Texas Voter ID Appeal
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72088>

Posted onApril 28, 2015 7:17 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72088>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Here 
<http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/14/14-41127_4-28-2015.mp3>. 
UPDATE: Here 
<https://www.texastribune.org/2015/04/28/fed-judge-legislature-why-not-tweak-voter-id-law/>is 
the Texas Tribune report from oral argument.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72088&title=Listen%20to%20the%20Oral%20Argument%20in%205th%20Circuit%20Texas%20Voter%20ID%20Appeal&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>

    “Moving the Lines: How Richard Pildes won Alabama Legislative Black
    Caucus v. Alabama” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72085>

Posted onApril 28, 2015 3:36 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72085>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYU Law 
<http://www.law.nyu.edu/news/ideas/how-richard-pildes-won-alabama-legislative-black-caucus-v-alabama>:

    Richard Pildes
    <https://its.law.nyu.edu/facultyprofiles/profile.cfm?personID=20200>, Sudler
    Family Professor of Constitutional Law, has thought deeply about the
    constitutionally appropriate role of race in redistricting for more
    than 20 years. His analytically rigorous scholarship, cited by the
    Supreme Court in 10 voting rights cases between 1995 and 2009, has
    frequently incorporated empirical data to advance a larger
    theme—namely, that the Court’s doctrine on the use of race under the
    Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) should be adapted to reflect
    changing racial realities. In November 2014, Pildes put his
    scholarship to the test to make his winning Supreme Court oral
    argument in/Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama/….

    The Court’s opinion was a personal triumph for Pildes for an
    additional reason, notes Professor Nathaniel Persily, a voting
    rights expert at Stanford Law School. “Pildes also achieved the
    unique distinction of not only winning over the majority, but also
    having his work cited by one of the dissenters [Justice Clarence
    Thomas]. It is a testament to his influence, and the trust the
    Justices, of different political and jurisprudential persuasions,
    place in him.”

    This case “might have been the harbinger of the end of the Voting
    Rights Act as we know it,” says Professor Justin Levitt of Loyola
    Law School, former counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice.
    “Instead, the Court unmistakably supported the contextual and
    nuanced assessment of race and politics that justice demands, and
    vigorously affirmed the place of the Voting Rights Act in that
    assessment. Pildes won the first Supreme Court racial gerrymandering
    case on behalf of African-American voters in 55 years, and in so
    doing, ensured that jurisdictions could not misuse legal protections
    for minority communities for their own political ends.”

Let me add my congratulations to Rick (a contributor to this blog) and 
others who worked on this case for a most impressive win before a court 
usually skeptical of claims raised by minority plaintiffs.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72085&title=%E2%80%9CMoving%20the%20Lines%3A%20How%20Richard%20Pildes%20won%20Alabama%20Legislative%20Black%20Caucus%20v.%20Alabama%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection law biz <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>

    “The Federal Election Campaign-Finance Problem”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72083>

Posted onApril 28, 2015 3:32 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72083>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

William G. Grigsby, Professor Emeritus of City and Regional Planning, 
University of Pennsylvania, has writtenthis draft 
<https://www.scribd.com/doc/263448085/The-Federal-Election-Campaign-Finance-Problem>. 
It discusses limits on campaign contributions by non-residents 
consistent with the First Amendment.  See alsothis earlier effort. 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55293>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72083&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Federal%20Election%20Campaign-Finance%20Problem%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

    Pa. Supreme Court Issues Opinion on Removing Candidate from Ballot
    Almost One Year After Issuing Order
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72081>

Posted onApril 28, 2015 3:24 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72081>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Inthis piece 
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2545676>on the 
Purcell Principle, I urge the Supreme Court to issue opinions in its 
emergency election cases some time later on down the line.  Today, we 
see a dramatic example of this at work. ViaHow Appealing 
<http://howappealing.abovethelaw.com/042815.html#061803>comes a majority 
opinion 
<http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-51-2014mo.pdf>anda 
dissenting opinion 
<http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-51-2014do.pdf> in 
a case following an order from May 5, 2014.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72081&title=Pa.%20Supreme%20Court%20Issues%20Opinion%20on%20Removing%20Candidate%20from%20Ballot%20Almost%20One%20Year%20After%20Issuing%20Order&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

    6th Circuit Strikes Down Ky 300-Foot No Electioneering Buffer Zone
    as 1st Amendment Violation <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72079>

Posted onApril 28, 2015 9:25 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72079>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Here. <http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/15a0078p-06.pdf>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72079&title=6th%20Circuit%20Strikes%20Down%20Ky%20300-Foot%20No%20Electioneering%20Buffer%20Zone%20as%201st%20Amendment%20Violation&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

    SSM Prediction from June 2013 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72077>

Posted onApril 28, 2015 7:53 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72077>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Here’s what I wrote inthis Reuters Opinion column 
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/07/15/court-due-to-make-second-trip-down-the-aisle/>in 
June 2013:

    If history is any guide, lower courts will divide over the
    constitutionality of such bans. Some courts may follow the lead of
    that part ofJustice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion
    <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf>in the
    Defense of Marriage Act case, seeing same-sex marriage bans as
    driven by unconstitutional animus toward LGBT people.

    Other courts may follow the lead of the other part of Kennedy’s
    opinion in the DOMA case, seeing the issue of same-sex marriage as
    one properly left for each state to decide. The lower courts will
    decide whether Kennedy’s gay rights psyche is stronger or weaker
    than his federalism psyche.

    Within a few years, these cases will start percolating back up to
    the Supreme Court. Especially if lower courts split over the
    question of the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans, it will
    be hard to see how the court avoids deciding the question.

    Liptak, in his e-book, says it is “awfully likely” the four most
    conservative justices were the ones who voted to hear the challenge
    to California’s Proposition 8, “making a calculation that their
    chances of winning would not improve with time.” The court
    ultimatelyducked the constitutional issue
    <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf>in that
    case, finding that the law’s defenders didn’t have legal standing to
    defend the case.

    Liptak is right that time is not on the side of marriage equality
    opponents. But if the case reaches the Supreme Court while Kennedy
    remains the deciding vote, it is anyone’s guess whether red state
    same-sex marriage bans will bite the dust or whether federalism will
    win the day yet again.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72077&title=SSM%20Prediction%20from%20June%202013&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

-- 
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/20150428/7bc01982/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/20150428/7bc01982/attachment.png>