[EL] ELB News and Commentary 8/6/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Thu Aug 6 07:42:08 PDT 2015
“How to Save the Voting Rights Act”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74899>
Posted onAugust 6, 2015 7:30 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74899>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
[bumping to the top for today’s 50th anniversary of the VRA; see alsomy
coverage<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74972>of yesterday’s very
important 5th Circuit Texas voter id ruling.]
I have writtenthis
piece<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/08/how_to_save_the_voting_rights_act_voting_rights_shouldn_t_rely_on_parsing.html>for
/Slate/. It begins:
In 2010, the/Simpsons/featured a news helicopter
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/22/simpsons-mocks-fox-news-racist_n_786712.html>emblazoned
with the logo: “FOX News: Not Racist, But #1 with Racists.” That
slogan might be applied to today’s Republican Party, which in recent
years has actively passed voting laws that make it harder for poor
and minority voters to vote. Whether to label the Republican Party
“racist” isn’t an academic exercise. The question is actually at the
heart of lawsuits over the future of voting rights in Texas and
North Carolina. It’s also a question with historical resonance,
particularly on the eve of the Voting Rights Act’s 50^th anniversary
this week.
The five-decade history of the Voting Rights Act is told masterfully
in Ari Berman’s new book,/Give Us the Ballot: The Modern Struggle
for Voting Rights in America/
<http://www.amazon.com/dp/0374158274/?tag=slatmaga-20>. Berman
starts around the time of the Selma, Alabama, marches, but unlike
the movie /Selma/
<http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00V8Z7E1Y/?tag=slatmaga-20>, Berman goes
on to give us the rest of the history: the expansion of voting
rights protections in 1970 and 1975 to include Latinos, Native
Americans, and others over the objections of racists, many in the
Democratic Party; the important 1982 rewriting of Section 2 of the
Voting Rights Act, providing additional protections for minority
voters nationally, and (now Chief Justice) John Roberts’ key role
for the Reagan administration in unsuccessfully fighting against the
expansion; hot disputes over voting rights in Florida in the 2000
election; the controversial renewal of the expiring “preclearance
provisions” of the act in 2006 that continued to require states with
a history of discrimination to get federal approval before changing
their voting laws; and the ongoing “voting wars
<http://www.amazon.com/The-Voting-Wars-Election-Meltdown/dp/0300198248>”
that accelerated when Roberts led the court’s conservatives in
striking down the 2006 preclearance renewal in/Shelby County v.
Holder/ <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/570/12-96/>.
Berman’s book, likeJim Rutenberg’s excellent cover story
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/29/magazine/voting-rights-act-dream-undone.html?_r=0>for
the/New York Times Magazine/on the 50^th anniversary of the Voting
Rights Act, views the struggles over voting rules primarily through
the lens of race. And although that is an essential lens to apply,
it downplays the growing role of partisan politics in this story, a
partisan struggle that is having profound ramifications for the
newest wave of court cases involving voting restrictions. Put
simply, the Republican Party has reasons unrelated to racial animus
to push new voting restrictions.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74899&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20to%20Save%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%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>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“First draft of congressional map shakes up some districts”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75051>
Posted onAugust 6, 2015 7:26 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75051>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Miami Herald reports.
<http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article30190932.html>
See also thisFred Grimm column
<http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/fred-grimm/article30155730.html>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75051&title=%E2%80%9CFirst%20draft%20of%20congressional%20map%20shakes%20up%20some%20districts%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Wisconsin’s Shame: the Left Attempts to Discredit a John Doe
Victim, but New Audiotape Tells Different Story”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75049>
Posted onAugust 6, 2015 7:23 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75049>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
National Review
<http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422070/wisconsin-john-doe-investigations-audiotape>:
The Journal Sentinel’s Daniel Bice has seized on the tape to assert
that it “contradicts” Archer’s claims, telling a “different story”
from the one she told National Review and the one she told in her
lawsuit. In reality, however, the tape omits all of the most
critical moments of the raid, and corroborates Archer’s account in
many key respects. To the extent it exposes differences between what
was recorded and Archer’s recollection, those differences actually
offer slight encouragement to those who wish to see law-enforcement
officials obey constitutional mandates. Crucially, the tape omits
the beginning of the raid, in which Archer reports that the police
pounded on the door, held a battering ram, confronted her while she
was completely undressed, and left her terrified that they would
shoot her dogs. Instead, the tape begins at an unknown time after
those events occurred, when an investigator apparently approaches
the house with the scene secure, Archer’s dogs under control, and
Archer and her partner (who’d been interrupted in the shower) fully
dressed. However, at the 18:50 mark Archer does describe what had
just happened, In other words, the tape doesn’t contradict Archer’s
story of the initial entry, and, in fact, her contemporaneous
statements corroborate the story she told NR.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75049&title=%E2%80%9CWisconsin%E2%80%99s%20Shame%3A%20the%20Left%20Attempts%20to%20Discredit%20a%20John%20Doe%20Victim%2C%20but%20New%20Audiotape%20Tells%20Different%20Story%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,chicanery
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
“Senate Report Cites I.R.S. Mismanagement in Targeting of Tea Party
Groups” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75047>
Posted onAugust 6, 2015 7:21 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75047>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/us/politics/senate-report-cites-irs-mismanagement-in-targeting-of-tea-party-groups.html?_r=0>:
A Senate committee on Wednesday closed a two-year investigation with
unanimous agreement that mismanagement at the Internal Revenue
Service led it to improperly target conservative groups seeking
tax-exempt status. But a report by the panel did not suggest that
any laws were broken, and Republicans and Democrats were divided
over whether White House politics was behind the problems….
Mr. Hatch said that the “personal politics of I.R.S. employees” like
Ms. Lerner affected “how the I.R.S. conducted its business.” But
committee Democrats said in the report that beyond “merely anecdotal
evidence that she was a Democrat,” nothing showed that Ms. Lerner
“allowed her political beliefs to affect how she carried out her
duties as a manager.”
The report said that appreciably more conservative-leaning groups
than left-leaning ones experienced multiyear delays and sometimes
intrusive auditing of their applications. Democrats attributed that
to the fact that more conservative groups were seeking tax-exempt
status from 2010 to 2013. The terms that were red flags to monitors
also included “progressive” and “Acorn.”
You can find the Senate Finance Committee reportat this link
<http://www.finance.senate.gov/library/reports/committee/download/?id=8ff9a3ac-74f8-4ec0-a554-40525529920c>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75047&title=%E2%80%9CSenate%20Report%20Cites%20I.R.S.%20Mismanagement%20in%20Targeting%20of%20Tea%20Party%20Groups%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,tax law
and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
“How campaign finance laws spawned permanent presidential campaigns”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75045>
Posted onAugust 6, 2015 7:17 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75045>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Scott Blackburn and Luke Wachob
oped<http://www.ocregister.com/articles/campaign-676126-campaigns-today.html>in
the OC Register:
So what changed? Why are presidential campaigns today a 24/7/365 affair?
There are innumerable reasons: the rise of television as a campaign
medium, the increased role of early-state primaries and the
decreased role of “back-room” party deals, to name a few.
But one overlooked cause may be campaign finance regulations, which,
to fair, are easy to overlook. Most Americans recognize that they
generally do not achieve their stated goal of preventing corruption,
nor do they appear to limit the ability of wealthy individuals and
corporations to spend as they wish on influencing elections and
policy. But the thousands of pages of regulations force candidates
to behave in a strictly regimented way that helps explain why
campaigns today begin so much earlier than they used to.
And the Citizens United era will lead to shorter campaigns? Hmmm.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75045&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20campaign%20finance%20laws%20spawned%20permanent%20presidential%20campaigns%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“50 Years of the Voting Rights Act”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75043>
Posted onAugust 6, 2015 7:15 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75043>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Spencer Overton
<http://jointcenter.org/blog/50-years-voting-rights-act>:
The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies recently
released /50 Years of the Voting Rights Act: The State of Race in
Politics
<http://jointcenter.org/sites/default/files/VRA%20report%2C%208.5.15%20%28540%20pm%29%28updated%29.pdf>.
<http://jointcenter.org/sites/default/files/2%20pg%20Executive%20Summary%208-5-15_0.pdf>/
The report is critical to understanding the impact of the Act and
the future of voting rights. The report provides data on minority
voter turnout, racially polarized voting, policy outcomes by race,
and the number of minority elected officials from the enactment of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965 until today.
*Click here for a 2-page summary of the report
<http://jointcenter.org/sites/default/files/2%20pg%20Executive%20Summary%208-5-15_0.pdf>*.
*Click here to read the full 46-page report*
<http://jointcenter.org/sites/default/files/VRA%20report%2C%208.5.15%20%28540%20pm%29%28updated%29.pdf>,
which is authored by Professors Khalilah Brown-Dean, Zoltan Hajnal,
Christina Rivers, and Ismail White.
Key findings:
* The black/white racial gap in voter turnout has decreased
dramatically in presidential elections since 1965.
* Local election turnout is generally less than half of
presidential general election turnout. As overall turnout
declines in local elections, the electorate may become less diverse.
* Turnout rates among both Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans
in presidential elections remain 15 to 20 points below white
Americans.
* Since 1960, the party identification and partisan voting
patterns of blacks and whites have become sharply divided.
* In urban local elections, race is a more decisive factor than
income, education, political ideology, religion, sexual
orientation, age, gender, and political ideology.
* Based on available data from 1972 to 2010, blacks were the least
successful group in America in terms of policy outcomes.
* Since 1965, the number of elected officials of color has grown
enormously, but people of color remain underrepresented in
elected office.
For an overview of the report, see the /Washington Post/
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/03/03/where-black-voters-stand-50-years-after-the-voting-rights-act-was-passed/>,
/BlackPressUSA/
<http://www.blackpressusa.com/blacks-still-underrepresented-at-all-levels-of-politics/?utm_source=BlackPressUSA+Readers&utm_campaign=e53773e568-BPUSA_Digest_5_84_17_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8eef023665-e53773e568-229150925#sthash.yr2JPYbr.dpbs>,
&/The Nation/
<http://www.thenation.com/blog/200193/50-years-after-bloody-sunday-voting-rights-are-under-attack#>.
Also, see this article “/*The Voting Rights Act Thirty Years Later*
<http://jointcenter.org/docs/FOCUS-PDF/1995/FEBRUARY/FEBRUARY%201995.PDF>/”
published by the Joint Center in 1995 and written by David Garrow,
who authored/Protest at Selma/and/Bearing the Cross/, won the
Pulitzer Prize, and was a visiting fellow at the Joint Center in 1984.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75043&title=%E2%80%9C50%20Years%20of%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Court filing: Scott Walker was under criminal investigation in
first John Doe probe” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75041>
Posted onAugust 6, 2015 7:11 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75041>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Cap Times
<http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/election-matters/court-filing-scott-walker-was-under-criminal-investigation-in-first/article_cf27ead4-0d4b-5ea1-bc0c-154f5092228e.html>:
Gov. Scott Walker was under criminal investigation as part of a John
Doe investigation into his aides and associates during his time as
Milwaukee County Executive, according to a court filing made Wednesday.
Walker has consistently maintained he was not a target of the probe.
“Absolutely not,”he told reporters in June 2012
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/walker-im-not-the-target-of-a-criminal-investiga#.cgv1qO019>.
“One hundred percent wrong. Could not be more wrong. It’s just more
of the liberal scare tactics out there, desperately trying to get
the (gubernatorial) campaign off target.”….
In a court filing made in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin by Milwaukee County District Attorney John
Chisholm and two deputies, a 2011 request for search warrants
indicates that investigators believed there was probable cause
Walker and two associates committed felony misconduct in office
while Walker’s administrationnegotiated a lease to house the
county’s Department on Aging
<http://one%20of%20three%20final%20bidders%20on%20a%20deal%20to%20purchase%20the%20milwaukee%20county-owned%20city%20campus%20building%20and%20provide%20office%20space/>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75041&title=%E2%80%9CCourt%20filing%3A%20Scott%20Walker%20was%20under%20criminal%20investigation%20in%20first%20John%20Doe%20probe%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,chicanery
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
“Rep. John Lewis and Sen. Patrick Leahy: Restore voting rights”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75039>
Posted onAugust 6, 2015 7:04 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75039>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
LAT oped.
<http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-john-lewis-voting-rights-act-20150807-story.html>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75039&title=%E2%80%9CRep.%20John%20Lewis%20and%20Sen.%20Patrick%20Leahy%3A%20Restore%20voting%20rights%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“The Voting Rights Act Is 50 Years Old Today. So Why Do Things Still
Seem So Bad” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75037>
Posted onAugust 6, 2015 7:03 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75037>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
HuffPo reports.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/voting-rights-act-50-years_55c12a20e4b05c05b01f6a0c?6zoj38fr>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75037&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20Is%2050%20Years%20Old%20Today.%20So%20Why%20Do%20Things%20Still%20Seem%20So%20Bad%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Texas voter ID law ruled invalid — in part”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75035>
Posted onAugust 6, 2015 7:00 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75035>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Lyle Denniston
<http://lyldenlawnews.com/2015/08/06/texas-voter-id-law-ruled-invalid-in-part/>:
Acting one day before the fiftieth anniversary of the nation’s most
important voting rights law, a federal appeals court on Wednesday
ruled that Texas
<http://lyldenlawnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Veasey-opinion-5th-CA-8-5-15.pdf> will
be barred from enforcing at least part of its four-year-old law that
requires a photo ID before a voter can go to the polls. The ruling
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, however, left a
good deal of doubt about how much of the law Texas will actually be
nullified after a new round of analysis that it ordered a federal
trial judge to do.
This is very much in line withmy own analysis:
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74972>a narrow and fragile win, and not a
sweeping one (and one which makes TX bail-in quite unlikely).
After hearing of the 5th Circuit en banc possibilities
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74999>, my bet in on Texas going straight
to the Supreme Court.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75035&title=%E2%80%9CTexas%20voter%20ID%20law%20ruled%20invalid%20%E2%80%94%20in%20part%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting
Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Why the Voting Rights Act Is Once Again Under Threat”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75032>
Posted onAugust 6, 2015 6:55 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75032>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ari Berman writes
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/opinion/why-the-voting-rights-act-is-once-again-under-threat.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region>for
The New York Times oped page.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75032&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20Is%20Once%20Again%20Under%20Threat%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>,VRAA
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=81>
“Celebrating one of the Voting Rights Act’s many anniversaries”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75030>
Posted onAugust 6, 2015 6:54 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75030>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Brianne Gorod
<http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/08/celebrating-one-of-the-voting-rights-acts-many-anniversaries/>at
Constitution Daily.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75030&title=%E2%80%9CCelebrating%20one%20of%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%E2%80%99s%20many%20anniversaries%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“The Voting Rights Umbrella” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75028>
Posted onAugust 6, 2015 6:53 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75028>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
President Bill Clinton essay
<http://ylpr.yale.edu/inter_alia/voting-rights-umbrella>in the /Yale Law
and Policy Review./
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75028&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Voting%20Rights%20Umbrella%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
US AG Lynch Statement on Texas Voter ID Ruling
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75026>
Posted onAugust 5, 2015 5:53 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75026>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CLr5faVUcAA4erl.jpg>, viaChris Geidner
<https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/629089421736996868>, whose
story on the ruling ishere at Buzzfeed <http://t.co/aLGCFlX0A6>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75026&title=US%20AG%20Lynch%20Statement%20on%20Texas%20Voter%20ID%20Ruling&description=>
Posted inThe Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Federal judges reject GOP request to delay special session on
redistricting” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75022>
Posted onAugust 5, 2015 4:40 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75022>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP
<http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/5ac70366465d4a5ea695c7b8dfe65bc8/VA--Redistricting-Lawsuit-Virginia>:
“A panel of judges has rejected Republican requests to delay an upcoming
special legislative session called to draw new congressional boundaries
in Virginia. The panel ruled 2-1 Wednesday that it was not going to
extend a Sept. 1 deadline to correct a 2012 redistricting plan the court
found used race as the predominant factor in drawing boundaries.”
I think there’s a good chance the Republican legislature will not pass a
plan, or not pass a plan the Democratic governor will sign, leaving the
court to draw the plan itself.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75022&title=%E2%80%9CFederal%20judges%20reject%20GOP%20request%20to%20delay%20special%20session%20on%20redistricting%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
“Kobach to file charges in voter fraud cases”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75020>
Posted onAugust 5, 2015 4:35 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75020>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
KWCH reports.
<http://www.kwch.com/news/local-news/kobach-to-file-charges-in-voter-fraud-cases/34561048>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75020&title=%E2%80%9CKobach%20to%20file%20charges%20in%20voter%20fraud%20cases%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted infraudulent fraud squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>,The
Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“The ‘People’s Pledge’ Gimmick: Bad For Voters”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75018>
Posted onAugust 5, 2015 4:28 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75018>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
CCP
<http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2015/08/04/the-peoples-pledge-gimmick-bad-for-voters-2/>:
The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP), America’s leading
nonprofit defending First Amendment political rights to speech,
assembly and petition, today released a new study by McWethy Fellow
Luke Wachob, entitled “The People’s Pledge Gimmick: Bad for Voters,”
explaining how so-called “People’s Pledges,” where candidates and
campaigns collude to restrict independent spending, harm democracy
by muzzling speech about the candidates. Wachob’s study also
examines how the pledge is vulnerable to gamesmanship that harms
both candidates and voters and notes that, to date, there is only
one general election race where both candidates agreed to a
“People’s Pledge.”
“Instead of taking pledges with incomprehensible rules that bore
voters, we should welcome more voices about candidates. It’s one
reason we have the First Amendment,”*said CCP President David
Keating*. “It’s not surprising that some candidates for office want
to restrict speech, but let’s be real – it’s not because of some
heroic defense of how to run campaigns – it’s because they don’t
want people speaking out about them or their records and potentially
costing them votes. More spending in elections means more voices are
heard, and leads to better informed voters.”
To read Wachob’s new study on the “People’s Pledge,”click here
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001QOAbGl3SZRqqAPyRbHsu65HQNBSvFBT_lnkblYcEqwXJ_qNKXd4msrYtNfkXQGyIRT19KTPjSgDaI5cFjlh_nr3gUD43QSJvfYYYNPotEs57xYCjH8EdXQHDhzpgJgyf1uDeKeUPFwLw1F5pTSqPyV5YAklN2C4uUh_awu7tT9ZlJD36qozEPKYeJfMP_9gzTmYPE6D6IgWSwCI0C29s30fJ_l-C3YWVXoJL3SuHq2EgKp4Wo3f_E0GlbFyvbk3JSKMlCFYpX9rOYSILjmugd2lZk4wJ4B4z5gWMA__8iRhvdDL6JiEZBm9Uxx7VQ_TlC64xniTjCyA=&c=U_lZ9Zh_OmQ02TVKR3m4KhdgwGWqOP01-3T5ppxIJfDMdod9nWHwaA==&ch=UpTaNRAUt2BcXAcAz6GY30ciwytZQySGiXw41zgtMMWgiBZqTT1CTg==>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75018&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20%E2%80%98People%E2%80%99s%20Pledge%E2%80%99%20Gimmick%3A%20Bad%20For%20Voters%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Do you know which candidates your company is funding?”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75016>
Posted onAugust 5, 2015 4:25 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75016>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Fortune reports.
<http://fortune.com/2015/08/05/corporate-political-donations/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75016&title=%E2%80%9CDo%20you%20know%20which%20candidates%20your%20company%20is%20funding%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Jigsaw Puzzle Politics in the Sunshine State”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75014>
Posted onAugust 5, 2015 4:22 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75014>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
New book on Florida redistricting by Seth McKee.Click on the link to get
the book this month at half price.
<http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=k4vjxbmab&v=001PcSdlfM_w90mrSost_lE8X33OV8fc_5TuSPmzYvPjUypq9DC9SRlBmHh_0MzGRcnyljgcBKybr1dPQCYVQfHhrjaI29cEyGd7lm-I-D17gWK13kQ1SEc7A%3D%3D>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75014&title=%E2%80%9CJigsaw%20Puzzle%20Politics%20in%20the%20Sunshine%20State%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
Links to Some of My Recent Writings on the VRA 50th, Etc.
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75012>
Posted onAugust 5, 2015 4:14 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75012>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The folks @UCILawput this together
<https://storify.com/UCILaw/prof-hasen-on-the-50th-anniversary-of-the-voting-r?awesm=sfy.co_b0dlS&utm_medium=sfy.co-twitter&utm_campaign=&utm_source=t.co&utm_content=storify-pingback>@Storify.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75012&title=Links%20to%20Some%20of%20My%20Recent%20Writings%20on%20the%20VRA%2050th%2C%20Etc.&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Redistricting Could Have the Most Disparate Effect”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75010>
Posted onAugust 5, 2015 4:01 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75010>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Nick Stephanopoulos’s contribution
<http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/08/05/ensuring-voting-rights-in-the-21st-century/redistricting-could-have-the-most-disparate-effect>to
NYT’s Room for Debate forum on the future of the Voting Rights Act is
now up.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75010&title=%E2%80%9CRedistricting%20Could%20Have%20the%20Most%20Disparate%20Effect%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Voting Rights
Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Appellate Panel Says Texas ID Law Broke U.S. Voting Rights Act”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75008>
Posted onAugust 5, 2015 3:59 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75008>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Erik Eckholm reports
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/us/appellate-panel-says-texas-id-law-broke-us-voting-rights-act.html>for
the NYT.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75008&title=%E2%80%9CAppellate%20Panel%20Says%20Texas%20ID%20Law%20Broke%20U.S.%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%E2%80%9D&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>
“Court: Texas Voter ID Law Violates Voting Rights Act”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75006>
Posted onAugust 5, 2015 3:57 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75006>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Texas Tribune reports.
<http://www.texastribune.org/2015/08/05/ruling-offers-texas-voter-id-critics-narrow-victor/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75006&title=%E2%80%9CCourt%3A%20Texas%20Voter%20ID%20Law%20Violates%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%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>
Press Statement from TX AG Fails to Acknowledge 5th Circuit Held
Voter ID Law Violates Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75002>
Posted onAugust 5, 2015 1:57 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75002>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Weird.
*Attorney General Paxton Statement on Voter ID Ruling*
/Texas’ Voter ID Law to Remain in Effect/
AUSTIN – Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton today released the
following statement on the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit on Texas’ Voter ID law:
“Today’s ruling was a victory on the fundamental question of Texas’
right to protect the integrity of our elections and the state’s
common sense Voter ID law remains in effect. I’m particularly
pleased the panel saw through and rejected the plaintiffs’ claim
that our law constituted a ‘poll tax.’ The intent of this law is to
protect the voting process in Texas, and we will continue to defend
this important safeguard for all Texas voters.”
Texas has successfully held three statewide elections and numerous
local and special elections with the Voter ID law in place – with no
disenfranchisement reported.
Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller presented arguments on April
28, 2015, on behalf of the State of Texas in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The Texas Legislature enacted Texas’ Voter ID law in 2011 through
Senate Bill 14 (SB14), which requires voters to present
government-issued photo ID when voting at the polls. The seven
acceptable forms of photo ID include the following: a Texas driver’s
license, free Texas election identification card (EIC), Texas
personal identification card, Texas license to carry a concealed
handgun, U.S. military identification card, U.S. citizenship
certificate, and U.S. passport.
Because the AG does not acknowledge that the 5th Circuit affirmed the
trial court’s finding that the law violates section 2 of the Voting
Rights Act, the release does not say if the state will seek en banc
review, SCOTUS review, or is contemplating either.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D75002&title=Press%20Statement%20from%20TX%20AG%20Fails%20to%20Acknowledge%205th%20Circuit%20Held%20Voter%20ID%20Law%20Violates%20Voting%20Rights%20Act&description=>
Posted inThe Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
Josh Douglas on Possibility of En Banc Review in 5th Cir. TX Voter
ID Case <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74999>
Posted onAugust 5, 2015 1:12 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74999>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Josh has shared these thoughts with the listserv, reprinted with permission:
Rick has suggested <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74972>that today’s
5th Circuit panel decision holding Texas’s voter ID law invalid
under Section 2 of the VRA is a good candidate for en banc review,
especially given that the panel is somewhat “liberal” for that
court. Having clerked on the 5th Circuit, I’m not sure that is
entirely correct.
Judge Haynes, who wrote the opinion, is a George W. Bush appointee.
She has gone with the conservative wing of the 5th Circuit many
times (including in the recent Texas abortion case). True, Judge
Stewart is pretty liberal, and Judge Brown is a district judge
(making her a wash in the en banc analysis as she would not have a
vote). Ultimately, the fact that Judge Haynes wrote the opinion is
very important here. And it is possible that she purposely wrote a
more narrow opinion to avoid having the case go en banc.
Typically the strong conservatives on that court (like Judges Jones,
Clement, and Smith) need to retain some of the more moderate
conservatives to take an ideological case en banc, so losing Judge
Haynes here makes en banc review unlikely. I’m not saying it won’t
happen, but I think Supreme Court cert is much more likely than en
banc review given that Judge Haynes would argue against it (in any
internal memos debating the case). For this to go en banc, the
conservatives would need to win over moderates like Judges Southwick
and Prado, and I don’t see that happening, especially given the
fact-intensive nature of the court’s analysis.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74999&title=Josh%20Douglas%20on%20Possibility%20of%20En%20Banc%20Review%20in%205th%20Cir.%20TX%20Voter%20ID%20Case&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
Breaking and Analysis: 5th Circuit Affirms Texas Voter ID Violates
Section 2, Remands on Question of Discriminatory Purpose
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74972>
Posted onAugust 5, 2015 12:35 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74972>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
[bumping to top]
A unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit has issuedan opinion
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/texas-5th-cir.pdf>which
is a great (but not complete) victory for those challenging Texas’s
strict voter id law. The court affirms that the law violates Section 2
of the Voting Rights Act, but rejects the claim of discriminatory
purpose and that the law constitutes a poll tax. The court remands for
more findings on discriminatory purpose and for a decision on the remedy
to the Section 2 violation. That remedy could allow Texas to keep
enforcing its law for most people, so long as it gives ways to vote for
those who face burdens under the law.
This is a narrow but important victory coming on the eve of the 50th
anniversary of the passage of the Voting Rights Act.
As I noted when this panel was drawn, this is a relatively liberal
panel in the 5th Circuit. [Note: the original version of this post
referred to the panel as the “most liberal” and upon hearing from a lot
of folks who follow the Fifth Circuit more than I do, this is incorrect.]
It is quite possible that Texas will try to take this case en banc to
the full 5th Circuit, or perhaps to the Supreme Court. It is also
possible that Texas would let this play out in another round at the
district court and then appeal, but that seems less likely.
This also strikes me as an opinion written as narrowly as possible to
still give a victory to the plaintiffs. (Perhaps that was the price of
a unanimous opinion?) Winning on a Section 2 claim, even given the
narrow remedial scope (more on that below) is still a significant
victory for Voting Rights plaintiffs and the Department of Justice. We
will see if it holds.
Here is some more detailed analysis of the case:
1. */Discriminatory purpose/. *In a key loss for plaintiffs, the 5th
Circuit remanded the question of racially discriminatory purpose to the
trial court, under a standard that will likely be very hard to meet.
Discriminatory purpose matters for a really important reason: not only
will lead to a finding of the law’s unconstitutionality and violation of
section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, it can also provide the basis (under
Section 3 of the Act) for the court to order Texas “bailed-in” for
federal oversight (“preclearance”) for up to 10 years. The 5th Circuit
started its purpose analysis by noting: “We recognize the charged nature
of accusations of racism, particularly against a legislative body, but
we also recognize the sad truth that racism continues to exist in our
modern American society despite years of laws designed to eradicate it.”
It said that the trial court erred in finding discriminatory purpose
based upon (1) old evidence of Texas’s official racial discrimination in
voting; (2) statements from opponents of the law about the purpose of
the majority passing it; and (3) post-enactment statements, again mostly
by opponents of the law. It said the trial court needs to find stronger
evidence of contemporaneous statements and actions of the legislature in
reaching this decision. So this issue gets remanded, but the onerous
standards means it will be very tough to prove such purpose.
2.*/Discriminatory effect under Section 2./*This is the big win for the
plaintiffs. The 5th Circuit adopted the two part “vote denial” test for
Section 2 claims used by the 4th and 6th circuits (which is probably the
standard that the trial court in the North Carolina voter id case will
apply). Applying the test, the 5th Circuit affirmed the trial court’s
finding of a Section 2 violation. It upheld the finding that the law
will have a discriminatory impact on minority voters—that is, minority
voters are disproportionately likely to lack one of the types of ID
which are allowed under Texas law. Then, applying the “totality of
circumstances” test//Gingles/Zimmer//Senate factors, the 5th Circuit
found enough evidence to sustain a finding that SB 14 “produces a
discriminatory result that is actionable because [it] . . . interact[s]
with social and historical conditions in Texas to cause an inequality in
the electoral opportunities enjoyed by African-Americans and Hispanic
voters.” Particularly interesting in this analysis is the question
whether Texas’s explanations for why it needed its law (antifraud, voter
confidence) were tenuous. The trial court found that they were because
the evidence did not support the need for voter id for either of these
purposes, and this factor worked in favor of finding of a Section 2
violation. Also interesting is that the 5th Circuit relied (as I
anticipated <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73758>) on the Supreme
Court’s recent Texas housing case in finding enough evidence of
disparate impact. “As such, we conclude that the district court did not
clearly err in determining that SB 14 has a discriminatory effect on
minorities’ voting rights in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights
Act. As discussed below, we remand for a consideration of the
appropriate remedy in light of this finding in the event that the
discriminatory purpose finding is different.”
3. */First and Fourteenth Amendment violations. /*Using the principle of
constitutional avoidance, the 5th Circuit refused to consider whether
the laws violated the fundamental right to vote, an issue which could be
revived if, for example, an en banc 5th Circuit rejects the panel’s
views on the Section 2 violation.
4. */Poll tax. /*The court rejected the poll tax argument, in part
because since the district court decision Texas amended its law to get
rid of a payment to get underlying documents to get a state issued id.
“As amended by SB 983, Texas law no longer imposes any direct fee for
any of the documentation required to obtain a qualifying voter ID.” The
court also held the indirect costs of voting could not constitute a poll
tax. The court added this: “This record reveals that Plaintiffs and
those who lack both SB 14 ID and underlying documentation face more
difficulty than many Texas voters in obtaining SB 14 ID. Plaintiffs and
others similarly situated often struggle to gather the required
documentation, make travel arrangements and obtain time off from work to
travel to the county clerk or local registrar, and then to the DPS, all
to receive an EIC. These greater difficulties receive consideration in
the Section 2 discriminatory effect analysis, but Supreme Court
jurisprudence has not equated these difficulties, standing alone, to a
poll tax.”
5. */Remedy. /*The 5th Circuit held that a remedy after a finding of
discriminatory effects should be narrower, and more deferential to the
state, than one where there is also a finding of discriminatory purpose.
The 5th Circuit strongly suggests that if the trial court on remand
finds no discriminatory purpose, it needs to consider a narrower remedy
than simply declaring the voter id law as something which cannot be used
under any circumstances:
“Clearly, the Legislature wished to reduce the risk of in-person voter
fraud by strengthening the forms of identification presented for voting.
Simply reverting to the system in place before SB 14’s passage would not
fully respect these policy choices—it would allow voters to cast ballots
after presenting less secure forms of identification like utility bills,
bank statements, or paychecks./See/TEX. ELEC. CODE§ 63.001(b) (West
2010). One possibility would be to reinstate voter registration cards as
documents that qualify as acceptable identification under the Texas
Election Code. The court could also decree that, upon execution of an
affidavit that a person does not have an acceptable form of photo
identification, that person must be allowed to vote with their voter
registration card.” This considerably narrows the scope of a Section 2
victory.
6.*/Timing./*//The court cautions that this case should not run up
against election deadlines, as it did last time, raising “Purcell
principle <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2545676>”
issues: “We urge the parties to work cooperatively with the district
court to provide a prompt resolution of this matter to avoid election
eve uncertainties and emergencies.”
7. */A Constitutional Challenge to Section 2 for the Supreme Court//?
/*Lurking in a footnote is the 5th Circuit’s rejection of the argument
that if Texas voter id law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act,
then Section 2 is unconstitutional. The issue is one the 5th Circuit
likely won’t address, but it could come up for the Supreme Court. (FN
24: “To the extent the State argues that the “results” test is
unconstitutional, we note that this court and many others have upheld
its constitutional validity./See, e.g./,/Vera/, 517 U.S. at 990–91
(collecting cases upholding Section 2’s constitutionality);/Jones/, 727
F.2d at 373–74. “Congressional power to adopt prophylactic measures to
vindicate the purposes of the fourteenth and fifteenth Amendments is
unquestioned” and “[o]n those occasions when the Court has stricken
enactments as exceeding congressional power under the enforcement
clauses of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendments, the congressional
objective has usually deviated from the central purposes of those
amendments—to ensure black equality.”/Jones/, 727 F.2d at 373–74. We are
bound by these precedents to conclude that Section 2, as applied here,
does not deviate from that purpose.”).
[/This post has been updated./]
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74972&title=Breaking%20and%20Analysis%3A%205th%20Circuit%20Affirms%20Texas%20Voter%20ID%20Violates%20Section%202%2C%20Remands%20on%20Question%20of%20Discriminatory%20Purpose&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>
“Maine Court: Anti-Gay Marriage Group Must Disclose Donors”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74993>
Posted onAugust 5, 2015 12:29 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74993>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP:
<http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/08/04/us/ap-us-gay-marriage-donors.html?smid=tw-share>
Maine’s highest court on Tuesday rejected a national anti-gay
marriage group’s latest bid to shield the identities of the donors
who contributed to its effort to defeat the state’s gay marriage law
in 2009.
The National Organization for Marriage had sought permission to
delay submitting a campaign finance report that the Maine Commission
on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices ordered it to file
last year when it fined the group $50,250 for its involvement in
overturning the law supportingsame-sex marriage
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/same_sex_marriage/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>six
years ago.
But the Maine Supreme Judicial Court said Tuesday that NOM can’t put
off filing the report and revealing its donor list until after the
court considers the group’s challenge of the commission’s ruling
because the justices said it’s unlikely that the Washington
D.C.-based organization will win its appeal.
You can find the decision of the Maine Supreme Judicial Courtat this
link
<http://courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/supreme/lawcourt/2015/15me103no.pdf>.
Next stop SCOTUS?
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74993&title=%E2%80%9CMaine%20Court%3A%20Anti-Gay%20Marriage%20Group%20Must%20Disclose%20Donors%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“GOP suit: Florida redistricting law equals ‘thought policing'”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74991>
Posted onAugust 5, 2015 12:17 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74991>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/gop-suit-florida-redistricting-law-equals-thought-policing-121039.html>on
a strange claim:
Two Florida Republican Party officials have filed a federal lawsuit
to block the state’s anti-gerrymandering constitutional clauses,
arguing the provisions limit First Amendment speech and amount to
“thought policing.”
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday night in the conservative-leaning
Pensacola division of the Northern District of Florida, comes less
than a week before the start of a special legislative session to
redraw some of the state’s 27 congressional districts.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74991&title=%E2%80%9CGOP%20suit%3A%20Florida%20redistricting%20law%20equals%20%E2%80%98thought%20policing%27%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
“Two years after scandal, the IRS still struggling”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74970>
Posted onAugust 5, 2015 10:57 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74970>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/08/05/two-years-after-scandal-the-irs-still-struggling/?postshare=5231438796327970>:
The Senate Finance Committee will release on Wednesday a bipartisan
report on the 2013 scandal involving the Internal Revenue Service
targeting conservative groups.
Much will be made about what led to the controversy, but more than
two years later the agency appears no better able to handle the
growing crush of political nonprofits raising many millions this
election season.
The agency has shuffled its staffing, including the high-profile
retirement of Lois Lerner
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/lois-lerner-no-contempt-charges-justice-department-116577.html>,
and taken steps to better manage the division that oversees
nonprofit applications. Those moves have decreased the chances that
the specific targeting leading to the scandal could be repeated. But
the agency is frozen by a hobbled budget and hostile relationship
with the committees that oversee it.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74970&title=%E2%80%9CTwo%20years%20after%20scandal%2C%20the%20IRS%20still%20struggling%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,tax law
and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
“Rand Paul super PAC head indicted over alleged 2012 campaign
finance violations” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74968>
Posted onAugust 5, 2015 10:04 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74968>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/05/rand-paul-super-pac-head-indicted-over-alleged-2012-campaign-finance-violations/?postshare=6501438794177524>:
Jesse Benton, a longtime ally of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) who is
heading up a super PAC supporting his presidential campaign, was
indicted Wednesday on charges that he concealed payments to a former
Iowa state senator.
The charges stem froman alleged
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/08/29/mcconnell-campaign-manager-jesse-benton-resigns-amid-federal-probe-into-2012-endorsement-for-pay-deal/>endorsement-for-pay
scheme
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/08/28/endorsement-for-play-investigation-that-brought-kent-sorenson-guilty-plea-is-ongoing/>during
the 2012 presidential campaign of former Republican congressman Ron
Paul of Texas. Two others were also indicted.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74968&title=%E2%80%9CRand%20Paul%20super%20PAC%20head%20indicted%20over%20alleged%202012%20campaign%20finance%20violations%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,chicanery
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
“A wealthy oligarchy of donors is dominating the 2016 election”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74964>
Posted onAugust 5, 2015 7:44 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74964>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo editorial
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-wealthy-oligarchy-of-donors-is-dominating-the-2016-election/2015/08/04/153879ee-3ad3-11e5-8e98-115a3cf7d7ae_story.html>:
THE UNITED States may be turning a corner in presidential politics.
Although the election itself is more than a year away, the latest
reports to the Federal Election Commission show that a wealthy
oligarchy of donors has come to dominate campaign finance,
particularly in the crowded Republican contest.Fewer than 400
families are responsible for almost half the money raised in the
campaign so far
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/small-pool-of-rich-donors-dominates-election-giving.html>,
according to an analysis by the New York Times. This class of
wealthy patrons, some with new fortunes and others of long-standing,
is throwing money into campaigns, not of all which will end happily.
But the preeminence of this clan of tycoons so early in the season
is not a good sign.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74964&title=%E2%80%9CA%20wealthy%20oligarchy%20of%20donors%20is%20dominating%20the%202016%20election%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Plutocrats United
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>
WI John Doe Case Could Well Be Heading to #SCOTUS
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74962>
Posted onAugust 5, 2015 7:34 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74962>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Patrick Marley
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/john-doe-prosecutor-asks-state-supreme-court-to-reconsider-ruling-b99551002z1-320757271.html>for
the Journal Sentinel:
A special prosecutor this week asked Wisconsin’s high court to
reconsider its decision ending an investigation intoGov. Scott
Walker’s
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/scott-walker-290106981.html>campaign,
in a sign he is considering taking the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Special prosecutor Francis Schmitz also asked the state Supreme
Court on Tuesday to stay itsruling last month
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/wisconsin-supreme-court-ends-john-doe-probe-into-scott-walkers-campaign-b99535414z1-315784501.html>ending
the probe and requiring him to destroy evidence he collected in the
investigation,according to online court records
<http://wscca.wicourts.gov/appealHistory.xsl;jsessionid=B113F086405FDD9E4B579DF21BF2E05C?caseNo=2014AP000296&cacheId=A31CBD36AE8AF236C9101E0C8E08A089&recordCount=1&offset=0&linkOnlyToForm=false&sortDirection=DESC>….
Schmitz can ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review their decision to
stay the case, as well as the state Supreme Court’s finding that
issue groups and candidates can closely cooperate with each other.
Tuesday’s filing is the clearest sign he is considering doing that.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74962&title=WI%20John%20Doe%20Case%20Could%20Well%20Be%20Heading%20to%20%23SCOTUS&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Federal Court Upholds AL Ban on Certain Party PAC-to-PAC Transfers
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74960>
Posted onAugust 5, 2015 7:32 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74960>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Alabama Democratic Conference v. Strange
<http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020150804889.xml/Alabama%20Democratic%20Conference%20v.%20Strange>:
Alabama’s Fair Campaign Practices Act (“FCPA”) prohibits a political
action committee (“PAC”) from making contributions, expenditures, or
transfers of funds to another PAC, except that a PAC that is not a
“principal campaign committee” may make contributions, expenditures,
or transfers of funds to a principal campaign committee. ALA. CODE §
17-5-15(b). This law was enacted in response to concerns that donors
were concealing their contributions to candidates by “laundering”
those contributions through multiple PACs before the donation
finally arrived with a candidate. The broad language of the statute
prohibits all contributions, expenditures, and transfers of funds
between PACs, except as noted above, including those from one PAC to
a second PAC where the money is to be used solely for “independent
expenditures.” The Alabama Democratic Conference (“the ADC”) asserts
the prohibition on its ability to receive contributions to be used
solely for independent expenditures violates the PAC’s First
Amendment rights. At the outset, the court notes that the ADC does
not challenge ALA. CODE § 17-5-15(b) on its face, but rather brings
an as applied challenge. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 29-43)….
In this case, the court finds that the ban on contributions,
expenditures, and transfers of funds to the ADC from other PACs is
closely drawn to further the State’s anti-corruption interest. In
light of lack of evidence of organizational separation or other
safeguards to prevent contributions that are nominally for
independent expenditures ending up in the Candidate Account, the
court cannot say that a more narrowly tailored solution, such a
limit on the amount another PAC could contribute to ADC, would
adequately protect the State’s interest. Given the lack of
safeguards, even a small donation could end up in the wrong account.
Further, the impact of the PAC-to-PAC transfer ban on the ADC’s
associational rights is minimal. The ADC is still able to receive
unlimited contributions from individuals; it can still make
unlimited contributions to candidates; and it can make unlimited
independent expenditures. Because ALA. CODE § 17-5-15(b) is closely
drawn to serve a sufficiently important state interest, the ADC’s as
applied constitutional challenge must fail./See Catholic Leadership
oal. of Texas,/764 F.3d at 445 (“Likewise, Texas’s complete ban on
Plaintiffs’ proposed contribution is closely drawn to its
anticircumvention interest insofar as Plaintiffs have failed to
provide any clear safeguard that sufficiently assures that no part
of the corporate contribution will end up being transferred to a
candidate.”).
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74960&title=Federal%20Court%20Upholds%20AL%20Ban%20on%20Certain%20Party%20PAC-to-PAC%20Transfers&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
--
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/20150806/d58944dc/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/20150806/d58944dc/attachment.png>
View list directory