[EL] Evenwel brief

Sat Aug 1 06:07:05 PDT 2015

Attached is the Evenwel brief.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Blackman
http://JoshBlackman.com
*Unprecedented: The Constitutional Challenge to Obamacare
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1610393287/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1610393287&linkCode=as2&tag=joshblaccom-20>*

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.marty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> If anyone obtains a copy of, or link to, the topside brief, due today,
> please send it to the list.  Thanks very much.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 31, 2015, at 12:06 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>
> Note: Heather Gerken's post <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74682> on the
> Charles/Feuntes-Rohwer Iowa piece on the Voting Rights Act had the wrong
> link to their piece.  You can find it at:
>
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2377470.
>
>
>
> “This is why the Voting Rights Act is on trial in North Carolina”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74765>
> Posted on July 31, 2015 9:01 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74765> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I have written this post
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/07/31/this-is-why-the-voting-rights-act-is-on-trial-in-north-carolina/?postshare=1781438352128737>
>  for The Monkey Cage at WaPo.  It begins:
>
> In a Winston-Salem, N.C. federal courthouse, closing arguments
> <http://www.twcnews.com/nc/triad/news/2015/07/30/closing-arguments-delayed-in-nc-elections-trial.html> are
> taking place this morning in a hotly-contested trial over North
> Carolina’s restrictive voting law
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/14/us/sides-dispute-basis-of-north-carolina-voting-laws-as-trial-contesting-them-opens.html>.
> The U.S. Department of Justice and civil rights groups say that the 2013
> law <http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2013/Bills/House/PDF/H589v9.pdf>,
> passed by a Republican legislature over the objections of Democrats,
> violates the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. The state defends its
> law as necessary to prevent voter fraud and keep public confidence in the
> electoral process.
>
> As the New York Times explained
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/14/us/sides-dispute-basis-of-north-carolina-voting-laws-as-trial-contesting-them-opens.html>,
> “The contested measures reduced early voting days, ended same-day
> registration, ended out-of-precinct voting and halted the preregistration
> of 16- and 17-year-old high school students. These measures had been
> adopted in the past 15 years to increase voter participation and were
> disproportionately used by black, Hispanic and younger voters.”
>
> Since the Voting Rights Act passed 50 years ago — on Aug. 6, 1965 — there
> have been many legal disputes over the extent of court protection for
> minority voting. The outcome of this one, like many cases before it, may
> depend upon how well murky law matches up with political science evidence.
>
> It concludes:
>
> Judge Schroeder could well be faced with a situation where plaintiffs have
> trouble proving the law will have a large discriminatory effect on
> African-American voters, but also ample evidence that North Carolina had no
> good reason antifraud or voter confidence reason for passing this law. The
> law was probably intended to help Republicans — who are overwhelmingly
> supported by white voters and not African-Americans in North Carolina —
> stay in office.
>
> With this evidence and a murky legal standard, it is unclear what Judge
> Schroeder will do, but he was skeptical of plaintiffs’ case at an earlier
> stage of the case, denying a preliminary injunction
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=64152> against some of these practices.
>
> Whatever Judge Schroeder decides, the North Carolina case could well end
> up before the Supreme Court. And if the history of the Supreme Court’s
> cases over 50 years of the Voting Rights Act is any guide, the fate of
> North Carolina’s law may depend less upon the political science evidence
> before the Court and more on the Justices’ ideological commitments and
> beliefs about the appropriate scope of voting protections for minorities.
>
>
>
>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74765&title=%E2%80%9CThis%20is%20why%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20is%20on%20trial%20in%20North%20Carolina%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, Voting Rights Act
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> “Symposium: Ideology, partisanship, and the new ‘one person, one vote’
> case” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74763>
> Posted on July 31, 2015 8:59 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74763> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I have written this contribution
> <http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/07/symposium-ideology-partisanship-and-the-new-one-person-one-vote-case/>
>  to SCOTUSBlog’s symposium on Evenwel v. Abbott.
> <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/evenwel-v-abbott/?wpmp_switcher=desktop>
>   It begins:
>
> It is tempting to think of the plaintiffs in *Evenwel v. Abbott*
> <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/evenwel-v-abbott/?wpmp_switcher=desktop>
>  as conservatives. After all, the brainchild
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72739>behind this new “one person, one
> vote” lawsuit, Ed Blum and his Project on Fair Representation
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/us/edward-blum-and-the-project-on-fair-representation-head-to-the-supreme-court-to-fight-race-based-laws.html>,
> brought us the demise of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act in the
> Supreme Court’s *Shelby County*
> <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/570/12-96/>* v. Holder* case
> and continued attacks on affirmative action in the second coming of the
> *Fisher *case
> <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/fisher-v-university-of-texas-at-austin-2/?wpmp_switcher=desktop>.
> But the theory the *Evenwel*plaintiffs pursue is anything but
> conservative: it is about taking power away from the states and having the
> Supreme Court overturn precedent by imposing through judicial fiat a
> one-size-fits-all version of democratic theory unsupported by the text of
> the Constitution or historical practice. *Evenwel* should be seen for
> what it is: not a conservative case but an attempted Republican power grab
> in Texas and other jurisdictions with large Latino populations.
>
> It concludes:
>
> *Evenwel *is a case which should be equally disturbing for conservatives
> and liberals. For conservatives, it is a case which challenges existing
> precedent for no reason, undermines federalism concerns, and goes against
> constitutional text, history and practice. For liberals, the case looks
> like little more than a Republican power grab, seeking to have the Court
> take away discretion for states in an arena in which states should have
> some leeway in deciding on the appropriate means of equal representation.
> It forces states to draw districts under a court-mandated theory that those
> without the vote, including children, felons, and non-citizens, do not
> deserve representations in state legislatures.
>
> This is the rare case where liberals and conservatives can unite behind
> the state of Texas. Texas has properly asked
> <http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/14-940-bio.pdf> the
> Supreme Court to leave the “one person, one vote” question where it has
> resided for almost fifty years: with the states.
>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74763&title=%E2%80%9CSymposium%3A%20Ideology%2C%20partisanship%2C%20and%20the%20new%20%E2%80%98one%20person%2C%20one%20vote%E2%80%99%20case%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
> Revealing @SeanTrende- at Dale_E_Ho Exchange in NC Voting Rights Trial
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74760>
> Posted on July 31, 2015 8:57 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74760> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I excerpt it in this post
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/07/31/this-is-why-the-voting-rights-act-is-on-trial-in-north-carolina/?postshare=1781438352128737>
>  at The Monkey Cage:
>
> North Carolina passed its 2013 restrictive voting law just a month after
> *Shelby*. So is the change connected to is history of race
> discrimination? Real Clear Politics’ Sean Trende, testifying as an expert
> <http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/politics/expert-says-viva-made-north-carolina-s-voting-laws-mainstream/article/439587>
>  political analyst for North Carolina, noted that seven other states
> besides North Carolina had no same-day registration, no out-of-precinct
> voting, less than 17 days of early voting, no preregistration, and a photo
> ID requirement—all five changes that were being challenged. Many states
> lacked one, two or three of these voting rules. But only eight states
> lacked all five.  That testimony led to a very interesting exchange with ACLU
> lawyer Dale Ho, <https://www.aclu.org/bio/dale-ho> representing the
> plaintiffs, on cross-examination:
>
>     Ho: Could you read those eight states into the record, please?
>
> Trende: Alabama, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
> Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
>
> Ho:  Now, according to your opinion in this case, these eight states are
> in the mainstream; correct, Mr. Trende?
>
> Trende: With respect to the voting practices at issue in this case, yes.
>
> Ho: Now, it is true, is it not, Mr. Trende, that all eight of these
> states, with the exception of Tennessee, were at one point covered in whole
> or in part by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act?
>
> Trende: I do not know.
>
> Ho of course was right that these seven were former preclearance states,
> suggesting that the vestiges of intentional racial discrimination still
> linger 50 years after the Voting Rights Act’s passage, something Trende did
> not factor into his analysis.
>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74760&title=Revealing%20%40SeanTrende-%40Dale_E_Ho%20Exchange%20in%20NC%20Voting%20Rights%20Trial&description=>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, Voting Rights Act
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> “Bush-aligned super PAC nets more than $100 million”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74758>
> Posted on July 31, 2015 8:51 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74758> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> WaPo reports.
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/07/31/bush-aligned-super-pac-nets-more-than-100-million/>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74758&title=%E2%80%9CBush-aligned%20super%20PAC%20nets%20more%20than%20%24100%20million%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
> The Kinder, Gentler Koch Bros. (Spending Up to $889 Million with their
> Partners on Campaigns in 2016) <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74756>
> Posted on July 31, 2015 8:49 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74756> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Nick Confessore
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/31/us/koch-brothers-brave-spotlight-to-try-to-alter-their-image.html?_r=1>
>  in the NYT on Kochs’ vaseline on the lens
> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/14/vaseline-camera-trick-effect_n_7062900.html>
> trick.
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74756&title=The%20Kinder%2C%20Gentler%20Koch%20Bros.%20%28Spending%20Up%20to%20%24889%20Million%20with%20their%20Partners%20on%20Campaigns%20in%202016%29&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> “Embattled Florida elections chief goes on the defense”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74754>
> Posted on July 31, 2015 8:47 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74754> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Tampa Bay Times
> <http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/legislature/embattled-florida-elections-chief-goes-on-the-defense/2239495>
> :
>
> Under fire once again for lapses in oversight of Florida’s voter database
> and lax communication, Gov. Rick Scott’s top elections official says he’ll
> “over-communicate” in the future.
>
> For embattled Secretary of State Ken Detzner, it’s an all-too-familiar
> refrain as he tries to improve his strained relationships with county
> election supervisors, who depend on a reliable database as they tabulate
> votes in Florida elections.
>
>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74754&title=%E2%80%9CEmbattled%20Florida%20elections%20chief%20goes%20on%20the%20defense%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
> “Democrats far behind GOP in raising money for ’16 super PACs”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74752>
> Posted on July 31, 2015 8:46 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74752> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Juile Bykowicz AP
> <http://news.yahoo.com/democrats-far-behind-gop-raising-money-16-super-071744542--election.html>
> :
>
> But most of those [super PACs] aligned with specific presidential
> candidates have already said how much they raised between January and the
> end of June. So far, they account for roughly $2 of every $3 given in the
> 2016 presidential race, with the vast majority of those donations aimed at
> helping Republicans win back the White House.
>
> Less than 9 percent of the money given to candidate-specific super PACs so
> far will benefit Clinton and her rivals for the Democratic nomination,
> according to an Associated Press analysis. The AP compared money raised by
> formal presidential campaigns with what the super PACs say they plan to
> report having raised on Friday.
>
>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74752&title=%E2%80%9CDemocrats%20far%20behind%20GOP%20in%20raising%20money%20for%20%E2%80%9916%20super%20PACs%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
> “In Money Race, Rick Perry’s Campaign Shows the Power of Few”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74750>
> Posted on July 31, 2015 8:42 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74750> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Bloomberg reports.
> <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-31/perry-s-campaign-shows-the-power-of-few?cmpid=BBD073115_POL>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74750&title=%E2%80%9CIn%20Money%20Race%2C%20Rick%20Perry%E2%80%99s%20Campaign%20Shows%20the%20Power%20of%20Few%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
> “Zephyr Teachout on Getting Big Money Out of Politics”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74748>
> Posted on July 31, 2015 8:41 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74748> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Justin Miller interviews Zephyr at TAP.
> <http://prospect.org/article/zephyr-teachout-getting-big-money-out-politics>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74748&title=%E2%80%9CZephyr%20Teachout%20on%20Getting%20Big%20Money%20Out%20of%20Politics%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> “In the Dark About ‘Dark Money'” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74746>
> Posted on July 31, 2015 8:40 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74746> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Brad Smith
> <http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2015/07/30/in-the-dark-about-dark-money/>:
>
> What should be clear is that the very label “dark money,” whether it can
> be adequately defined or not, is intended as a pejorative to skew the
> difficult discussion about political speech and participation, government
> power, and the influence of money and wealthy donors. It’s handy and
> catchy, so it sticks, but it is not, and is not intended to be, a neutral
> description. And it’s definition is indeed malleable, so that the merry
> regulators can use it as they please. When they think a number sounds
> scary, they use it, as if “dark money” were some clearly defined and
> measurable concept. When their own numbers are turned back on them (as in
> pointing out that it is a very small part of total spending), “dark money”
> again becomes a vague concept, in which no one can know what is lurking
> below the surface, like some malevolent iceberg or killer shark.
>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74746&title=%E2%80%9CIn%20the%20Dark%20About%20%E2%80%98Dark%20Money%27%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> “Ignorant Voters are the Problem: Campaign Finance Laws Won’t Save the
> Nation from Uninformed Voters” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74744>
> Posted on July 31, 2015 8:37 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74744> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Tony Gaughan oped
> <http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/07/31/campaign-finance-cant-be-reformed-because-of-ignorant-voters>
>  at US News.  He’s also written What the Scott Walker fundraising
> controversy means for 2016
> <https://theconversation.com/what-the-scott-walker-fundraising-controversy-means-for-2016-45147>
> .
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74744&title=%E2%80%9CIgnorant%20Voters%20are%20the%20Problem%3A%20Campaign%20Finance%20Laws%20Won%E2%80%99t%20Save%20the%20Nation%20from%20Uninformed%20Voters%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
> Quote of the Day: #SCOTUS Edition <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74742>
> Posted on July 30, 2015 4:34 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74742> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> “Sometimes people say the Supreme Court is there to protect the voice of a
> minority… Perhaps, but over time I think most Supreme Court decisions have
> been accepted as consistent with the views and beliefs and commitments and
> ideas and hopes and dreams of the people.”
>
> —Justice Anthony Kennedy
> <http://fox13now.com/2015/07/30/u-s-supreme-court-justice-kennedy-suggests-constitution-evolves-references-same-sex-marriage-case/>,
> addressing the Utah Bar Association.
>
>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74742&title=Quote%20of%20the%20Day%3A%20%23SCOTUS%20Edition&description=>
> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
> “Why is an obscure Montana company one of John Kasich’s biggest boosters?
> One day after forming, the LLC gave $500,000 to group backing Ohio governor”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74740>
> Posted on July 30, 2015 3:06 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74740> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> CPI
> <http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/07/30/17733/why-obscure-montana-company-one-john-kasichs-biggest-boosters>
> :
>
> A group backing Republican John Kasich‘s presidential aspirations received
> $500,000 in seed money from a seemingly odd source, according to documents
> filed today
> <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2187104-new-day-independent-media-committee.html>:
> an obscure limited liability company in Montana.
>
> But a Center for Public Integrity <http://www.publicintegrity.org/> review
> of business filings indicates the company is linked to someone quite
> familiar to Kasich, the current governor of Ohio — a venture capitalist who
> served in Kasich’s administration.
>
> The limited liability company, called MMWP12 LLC, made a
> half-million-dollar donation to the pro-Kasich New Day Independent Media
> Committee the day after the company formed.
>
> Making matters murkier: MMWP12 LLC is actually controlled by another
> Montana-based company called K2M LLC, according to state business records
> <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2187165-mmwp12-llc-montana-business-records.html>
> .
>
>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74740&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20is%20an%20obscure%20Montana%20company%20one%20of%20John%20Kasich%E2%80%99s%20biggest%20boosters%3F%20One%20day%20after%20forming%2C%20the%20LLC%20gave%20%24500%2C000%20to%20group%20backing%20Ohio%20governor%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
> “Larry Noble Testifies on the IRS and ‘Dark Money’ Before Senate Judiciary
> Subcommittee” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74737>
> Posted on July 30, 2015 2:11 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74737> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> See here.
> <http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/sites/default/files/Larry%20Noble%20Testimony%20before%20Senate%20Judiciary%20on%20-%20IRS%20501cs%207-29-15.pdf>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74737&title=%E2%80%9CLarry%20Noble%20Testifies%20on%20the%20IRS%20and%20%E2%80%98Dark%20Money%E2%80%99%20Before%20Senate%20Judiciary%20Subcommittee%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
> State Expert in NC Trial: Walking 3 Miles (Each Way) to Vote Not a Big Deal
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74735>
> Posted on July 30, 2015 1:23 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74735> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> From the uncorrected transcript of 7/28 from the North Carolina voting
> trial (my emphasis):
>
>
>
> BY MS. EARLS
>
> Q Thank you, Your Honor. I have just a couple of questions. Dr. Hofeller,
> in your analysis of the proximity to early voting sites, you concluded that
> a 5-mile range is a reasonable distance; is that correct?
>
> A I’m sorry. I think it was 3 miles, was it not?
>
> Q If it’s a 3-mile range, are you assuming that people will have access to
> a car or a motor vehicle or are you assuming that they would walk 3 miles?
>
> A Well, I mean, some will have a motor vehicle and some won’t have a motor
> vehicle.
>
> Q So —
>
> *A I know you could probably walk 3 miles. I walk 2 miles a day, and it
> doesn’t wear me out very much.*
>
> Q So you didn’t make any assumption either way as to whether or not people
> have access to motor vehicles?
>
> A You are correct. I did not make an assumption.
>
> Wow.
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74735&title=State%20Expert%20in%20NC%20Trial%3A%20Walking%203%20Miles%20%28Each%20Way%29%20to%20Vote%20Not%20a%20Big%20Deal&description=>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, Voting Rights Act
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> “GOP criticizes ‘offensive’ posts of NC elections appointee”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74733>
> Posted on July 30, 2015 1:05 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74733> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> AP
> <http://www.journalnow.com/news/state_region/gop-criticizes-offensive-posts-of-nc-elections-appointee/article_118d62c8-36f5-11e5-8aa5-8ffa1cbb8f94.html>:
> “North Carolina Republican Party officials say they were unaware of
> racially tinged social media posts by a man appointed to a county elections
> board.”
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74733&title=%E2%80%9CGOP%20criticizes%20%E2%80%98offensive%E2%80%99%20posts%20of%20NC%20elections%20appointee%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
> “Pillar of Law Calls on Texas Court to Prevent Criminalization of Politics”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74731>
> Posted on July 30, 2015 12:45 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74731> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Press release
> <https://pillaroflaw.org/index.php/blog/entry/pillar-of-law-calls-on-texas-court-to-prevent-criminalization-of-politics>
> :
>
> The Pillar of Law Institute filed an *amicus curiae
> <https://pillaroflaw.org/images/Article_PDFs/Cary_v._Texas_II-to_file_7.30.15.pdf>*
>  (friend-of-the-court) brief with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in
> the case *Cary v. Texas* today, arguing that the Texas Attorney General’s
> Office unconstitutionally applied the state’s bribery, money laundering and
> organized crime statutes to what were actually campaign finance violations.
>
> I’m one who is generally concerned about the criminalization of politics
> <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/rick-perry-and-the-criminalization-of-politics>,
> but from my quick look I worry this would greatly expand first amendment
> protections for bribery.
>
>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74731&title=%E2%80%9CPillar%20of%20Law%20Calls%20on%20Texas%20Court%20to%20Prevent%20Criminalization%20of%20Politics%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in bribery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>, campaign finance
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, chicanery
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
> “N.C. attorneys rest their case in federal voting rights trial”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74728>
> Posted on July 30, 2015 10:53 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74728> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The latest
> <http://www.journalnow.com/news/elections/n-c-attorneys-rest-their-case-in-federal-voting-rights/article_54025a12-36d9-11e5-bb9d-3b2faeae03ea.html>
>  from the NC voting trial. “Closing arguments were scheduled for this
> afternoon, but it now appears that they won’t happen until Friday morning.
> U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder will issue a written opinion sometime
> later this year.”
>
> MORE
> <http://www.twcnews.com/nc/triad/news/2015/07/30/closing-arguments-delayed-in-nc-elections-trial.html>
>  from TWC.
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74728&title=%E2%80%9CN.C.%20attorneys%20rest%20their%20case%20in%20federal%20voting%20rights%20trial%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
> “Outcome of trial on N.C. election law changes will have national effect”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74726>
> Posted on July 30, 2015 10:51 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74726> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Bob Barnes reports
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/outcome-of-trial-on-nc-election-law-changes-will-have-national-effect/2015/07/30/00645094-35f4-11e5-b673-1df005a0fb28_story.html>
>  for WaPo.
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74726&title=%E2%80%9COutcome%20of%20trial%20on%20N.C.%20election%20law%20changes%20will%20have%20national%20effect%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, The Voting Wars
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, Voting Rights Act
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> On Political Fragmentation <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74720>
> Posted on July 30, 2015 9:21 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74720> by Richard
> Pildes <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>
>
> “Conservatives hold John Boehner hostage”
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/conservatives-hold-john-boehner-hostage/2015/07/29/6fd3060a-362b-11e5-b673-1df005a0fb28_story.html>
>
> “Boehner response to Meadows insurrection: “No Big Deal””
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/29/boehner-response-to-meadows-insurrection-no-big-deal/> [corrected
> link]
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74720&title=On%20Political%20Fragmentation&description=>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
> “David Prosser says he didn’t need to step aside in Scott Walker probe”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74717>
> Posted on July 30, 2015 9:05 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74717> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:
> <http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/david-prosser-says-he-doesnt-need-to-step-aside-in-walker-probe-b99547465z1-319731971.html>
>
> Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser issued an opinion Wednesday
> saying he did not need to step aside from cases over an investigation into
>  Gov. Scott Walker
> <http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/scott-walker-290106981.html>‘s
> campaign even though groups spent millions of dollars to support both him
> and the governor.
>
> Prosser’s decision <http://media.jrn.com/documents/prosserrecusal.pdf> revealed
> two of the people caught up in the investigation had been involved in
> Prosser’s 2011 re-election bid and had stressed the importance of finding
> donors for him.
>
> Prosser wrote that outside spending to help him was “very valuable to my
> campaign” but did not rise to a level that would require him to step down
> from the challenge to the investigation of those groups. That’s because the
> expenditures were made four years ago, at a time when there was no
> indication they would appear before the state’s high court.
>
> “The public ultimately decides at the ballot box who is permitted to serve
> on the Wisconsin Supreme Court,” Prosser wrote. “The special prosecutor
> seeks to prevent an elected justice from performing that service unless
> that unelected special prosecutor wants the elected justice to sit on the
> case. This is not the way the system works.”
>
> Prosser was part of a 4-2 majority that ruled this month
> <http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/wisconsin-supreme-court-ends-john-doe-probe-into-scott-walkers-campaign-b99535414z1-315784501.html>
>  that the probe into Walker’s campaign must be ended and evidence
> prosecutors have obtained must be destroyed. It came three days after the
> GOP governor formally announced his bid for the presidency.
>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74717&title=%E2%80%9CDavid%20Prosser%20says%20he%20didn%E2%80%99t%20need%20to%20step%20aside%20in%20Scott%20Walker%20probe%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, judicial
> elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>
> NVRA Settlement Reached with Oklahoma
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74715>
> Posted on July 30, 2015 9:03 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74715> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Demos press release
> <http://www.demos.org/press-release/voting-rights-advocates-settle-matter-alleging-nvra-violations>
> :
>
> Voting rights advocates and Oklahoma officials announced today that a settlement
> has been reached
> <http://www.demos.org/publication/oklahoma-national-voter-registration-act-settlement>to
> provide more effective voter registration opportunities to citizens
> throughout the state.
>
> This effort began last summer when the Metropolitan Tulsa Urban League,
> the League of Women Voters of Oklahoma and Metropolitan Tulsa, and YWCA
> Tulsa notified Paul Ziriax, the Secretary of the Oklahoma State Election
> Board, that it appeared Oklahoma’s public assistance agencies were not
> offering clients a meaningful opportunity to register to vote. Under the
> National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), state agencies that provide
> public assistance must ask clients whether they want to register to vote,
> offer them voter registration materials, and help them complete
> registration forms.
>
> The community groups said in their letter to Secretary Ziriax that the
> number of voter registration applications reported statewide by Oklahoma
> public assistance agencies had dropped 81 percent since the initial
> implementation of the NVRA in 1995. At the same time, the average monthly
> participation in the SNAP program, just  one of the programs covered by the
> NVRA, nearly doubled. Only 61 percent of Oklahoma citizens in low-income
> households were registered to vote in 2012, compared to 81 percent of those
> in affluent households. In fieldwork investigations conducted at Oklahoma
> public assistance agencies on behalf of the community groups, a significant
> percentage of agency clients interviewed said that they received no voter
> registration services whatsoever when, under the NVRA, they should have….
>
> Read the full settlement here.
> <http://www.demos.org/publication/oklahoma-national-voter-registration-act-settlement>
>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74715&title=NVRA%20Settlement%20Reached%20with%20Oklahoma&description=>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, NVRA
> (motor voter) <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>
> The Most Interesting Question in Evenwel
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74712>
> Posted on July 30, 2015 8:30 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74712> by Richard
> Pildes <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>
>
> In my contribution to the SCOTUS blog Symposium
> <http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/07/symposium-misguided-hysteria-over-evenwel-v-abbott/>
>  in this case, I provide reasons that the Court is unlikely, in my view,
> to accept the appellants’ position.  But that is not the end of the case.
> The more interesting question is whether the Court will decide that the
> Constitution *forbids *states from basing districts on eligible voters
> lone and *requires *that total population be used (as, in fact, has been
> existing practice for several decades).  Here is part of what I say about
> whether states are free to pick and choose between “voter equality” or
> “representational equality” in designing districts:
>
> Remarkably, the Court has only focused on this substantive question at all
> in one case, *Burns v. Richardson* (1966), decided at the dawn of the
> reapportionment revolution; *Burns *concluded states could make either
> choice. Now that the issue is back before the Court nearly fifty years
> later, the jurisprudential issue is whether all the developments in
> redistricting and voting-rights law in those intervening years should lead
> the Court to conclude that equal protection requires a uniform
> understanding concerning the correct population measure that must be used.
> (My co-authored casebook, *The Law of Democracy*, asks whether “*Burns *survives
> the subsequent development of voting rights law.”) If the Court does
> conclude that a uniform understanding of “equality” is required, the most
> likely outcome is representational equality – equality of the total number
> of persons across districts.
>
> The argument for a uniform understanding of “equality” is strong, as a
> matter of both constitutional principle and pragmatic judicial
> implementation of the Constitution. In the apportionment cases, the Court
> has spoken eloquently many times about the importance of political equality
> in designing districts – but equality of whom, people or voters?   If the
> basic principle is of such constitutional magnitude, there is much force to
> the conclusion that the Court has an obligation to specify equality of
> whom, or equality with respect to what value or principle. The choice
> between electoral equality and representational quality is not a
> fine-grained technical detail of how to implement the Equal Protection
> Clause. That choice is a fundamental, categorical one about the essential
> interpretation and meaning of equal protection in the context of designing
> our basic democratic institutions. Does the clause require that all persons
> in a jurisdiction (non-eligible voters as well as voters) have roughly
> equal political representation? Or does it require that all eligible voters
> have a roughly equal voting power? Those are fundamentally
> different-in-kind understandings of equal protection that flow from the
> Court’s “one person, one vote” jurisprudence – precisely the kind of
> question, in other contexts, to which the Court would provide the answer.
>
> The reason the Court gave in *Burns *for leaving this choice instead to
> state discretion was that the decision of which groups to include in the
> baseline for districting “involves choices about the nature of
> representation with which we have been shown no constitutionally founded
> reason to interfere.” But in the context of the Reapportionment Cases, this
> explanation is off-key. After all, it was the vehement position of the
> dissenting Justices in these cases, such as Justices Harlan and
> Frankfurter, that the Court should not get involved in these issues at all
> because to get involved was to require the Court to choose among competing
> theories of political representation.
>
> The Court crossed that Rubicon when it decided that equal protection did
> not permit representation to be based on geographic units, such as towns
> and counties, and did require it to be based on equal numbers of sentient
> beings (people or voters). Having completely redefined the basis of
> political representation the Constitution requires, the Court’s reticence
> about not wanting to choose between competing theories of representation
> when it comes to voters or people rings hollow. Instead, *Burns *reads
> like a tentative, interim, and transitional decision in the early stages of
> working out the meaning of the Reapportionment Cases. Decided only two
> months after argument,*Burns *arose with elections imminently pending and
> dealt with what was only an interim districting plan; in other words, the
> stakes were low, the need for an immediate decision pressing.
>
> With the much fuller development of the “one person, one vote” doctrine in
> the fifty years since, it is not obvious the Court will be comfortable with
> leaving states as much discretion to choose “equality of whom” in
> districting. And given the intensity of today’s political conflicts over
> immigration, it is not difficult to imagine those politics coming to
> further poison redistricting, if states are free to move back and forth
> between using voters or persons as the measure of district equality. Given
> how aware the Court is of the extreme partisan polarization of our era, and
> how that polarization plays out already in districting, the Justices might
> conclude that strong pragmatic reasons further support adoption of a
> uniform principle concerning district “equality.”
>
> The courts of appeals, in the three major cases raising this issue, have
> all explained why representational equality is the better interpretation of
> the principles underlying the “one person, one vote” doctrine. But all have
> recognized that the issue is important and the question close. In
> *Evenwel*, this issue arose for the first time in the Court’s
> non-discretionary appellate jurisdiction; the Court was right to take the
> case, rather than summarily affirm, and to give this issue the attention it
> deserves. Texas, as the defendant-appellee, will only ask the Court to
> affirm the status quo and let Texas (and other States) continue to have
> discretion to choose whether to create district equality between persons or
> voters. Texas will succeed to at least that extent, I believe. But now that
> the Court will be forced to confront these issues, the Court might well
> conclude that it has an obligation to decide whether there is a right
> answer to the question under the Equal Protection Clause of “equality of
> whom” and that the better answer is equality of political representation
> for all persons.
>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74712&title=The%20Most%20Interesting%20Question%20in%20Evenwel&description=>
> Posted in Uncategorized <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 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/http://electionlawblog.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150801/a905606c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: POFR Evenwel Brief of Appellants (July 31 2015).pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 371273 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150801/a905606c/attachment.pdf>