[EL] ELB News and Commentary 4/30/15

Wed Apr 29 21:33:53 PDT 2015

    “Hillary Clinton to Jump Start Fund-Raising Efforts”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72118>

Posted onApril 29, 2015 9:16 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72118>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT 
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/04/29/hillary-clinton-to-jump-start-fund-raising-efforts/>:

    Hillary Rodham Clinton had once planned to wait until May to hold
    her first fund-raising events. But in the last two weeks, she has
    moved up her schedule, primarily out of concern about Jeb Bush’s
    extensive super PAC fundraising, according to donors and people in
    contact with the campaign.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72118&title=%E2%80%9CHillary%20Clinton%20to%20Jump%20Start%20Fund-Raising%20Efforts%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

    Some Interesting Theories of Chief Justice Roberts’ Vote in
    Williams-Yulee <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72116>

Posted onApril 29, 2015 8:30 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72116>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

My take <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72092>on the Chief Justice’s 
motivations in/Williams-Yulee/ is that he’s come around to the position 
that judicial elections are different, and the First Amendment balance 
may be struck differently. But maybe I’m naive.

Noah 
Feldman<http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-29/roberts-plays-politics-by-denying-judges-are-political>sees 
a deeper motivation: “The ultimate irony of Wednesday’s opinion is that 
it shows Roberts as a consummate politician, manipulating the 
constitutional doctrine to produce a result that will achieve his 
political goal of insisting that judges aren’t political.”

And one of my readers (from the far right) writes: “This is only going 
to increase speculation since the ACA ruling, that the Chief Justice is 
being blackmailed somehow. I suspect it might cause some planned 
litigation to be slow-walked, to see if the trend of him voting with the 
liberal members is going to continue, and conservatives have lost their 
majority.”  When I wrote that this sounded a bit paranoid, my reader 
responded:

    Given what we now know about the extent of NSA and other agency
    spying on Americans, the line between paranoia and well grounded
    suspicion is getting kind of vague… And the IRS has made it kind of
    difficult to blow off the notion of a government agency making
    itself into a political weapon. Roberts’ ACA ruling really came out
    of the blue, so far as my side was concerned. Nobody trusted
    Kennedy, but Roberts? Who expected him to start making off the wall
    excuses to uphold an unpopular liberal law?
    It’s not an uncommon suspicion.
    <https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&q=is+justice+roberts+being+blackmailed>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72116&title=Some%20Interesting%20Theories%20of%20Chief%20Justice%20Roberts%E2%80%99%20Vote%20in%20Williams-Yulee&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

    Williams-Yulee Roundup <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72114>

Posted onApril 29, 2015 8:24 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72114>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/supreme-court-rules-in-williams-yulee-florida-judicial-fund-raising-case.html?_r=0>

WaPo 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/court-states-may-ban-judicial-candidates-from-personal-fundraising/2015/04/29/475db6f4-ee94-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html>

LAT 
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-spureme-court-judges-campaign-money-20150429-story.html>

NLJ 
<http://www.nationallawjournal.com/supremecourtbrief/home/id=1202724994477/Supreme-Courts-Yulee-Decision-A-Turning-Point-on-Judicial-Elections?mcode=1202615432728&curindex=1&back=NLJ>

HuffPo 
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/29/supreme-court-campaign-finance_n_7171270.html>

Reuters 
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/29/us-usa-court-election-idUSKBN0NK1OU20150429>

Bloomberg 
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-29/judicial-campaign-solicitation-ban-upheld-by-u-s-supreme-court>

SCOTUSBlog 
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/04/opinion-analysis-a-modest-restraint-on-campaign-fund-raising/>

AP 
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_JUDICIAL_ELECTIONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>

NPR 
<http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/04/29/403056957/court-corporations-may-be-people-but-judges-are-not-politicians>

WSJ 
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-rules-states-can-bar-judicial-candidates-from-soliciting-donations-1430319932>

VOX 
<http://www.vox.com/2015/4/29/8514243/Williams-Yulee-v-Florida-Supreme-Court>

NYT editorial 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/opinion/a-judicial-campaign-rule-survives-at-the-supreme-court.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72114&title=Williams-Yulee%20Roundup&description=>
Posted injudicial elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>,Supreme 
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

    “Of Politicians and Girl Scouts: First Thoughts on the Supreme
    Court’s Judicial Campaign Finance Decision”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72112>

Posted onApril 29, 2015 8:12 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72112>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bauer blogs. 
<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2015/04/politicians-girl-scouts-first-thoughts-courts-judicial-campaign-finance-decision/>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72112&title=%E2%80%9COf%20Politicians%20and%20Girl%20Scouts%3A%20First%20Thoughts%20on%20the%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%99s%20Judicial%20Campaign%20Finance%20Decision%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted injudicial elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>,Supreme 
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

    “Foreword: Are elected state judges now “above the political fray”?”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72110>

Posted onApril 29, 2015 5:01 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72110>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Ron Collins’ foreword 
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/04/foreword-are-elected-state-judges-now-above-the-political-fray/>to 
SCOTUSBlog symposium on Williams-Yulee.  Great lineup!

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72110&title=%E2%80%9CForeword%3A%20Are%20elected%20state%20judges%20now%20%E2%80%9Cabove%20the%20political%20fray%E2%80%9D%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted injudicial elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>,Supreme 
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

    “State high court quickly ousts Shirley Abrahamson as chief justice”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72108>

Posted onApril 29, 2015 4:59 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72108>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

No 
surprise<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/with-amendment-certified-is-shirley-abrahamson-still-chief-justice-b99490999z1-301696271.html>in 
Wisconsin.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72108&title=%E2%80%9CState%20high%20court%20quickly%20ousts%20Shirley%20Abrahamson%20as%20chief%20justice%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted injudicial elections 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>,political parties 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,political polarization 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>

    Question for Supreme Court Gurus about Strict Scrutiny in
    Williams-Yulee <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72106>

Posted onApril 29, 2015 1:13 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72106>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

As I explained inthis post <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72092>, the 
Chief Justice wrote only for a plurality in applying strict scutiny to 
the judicial campaign speech issue before it.  Justice Ginsburg (and to 
some extent Justice Breyer) did not go along.  But is it fair to say 
that strict scrutiny is “the Court’s” rule, because all the dissenters 
applied strict scrutiny to the issue as well?

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72106&title=Question%20for%20Supreme%20Court%20Gurus%20about%20Strict%20Scrutiny%20in%20Williams-Yulee&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/20150429/37dfc165/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/20150429/37dfc165/attachment.png>