[EL] Senate Committee IRS Report

Thu Aug 6 09:33:30 PDT 2015

The link below only displays about half the report.  There are additional views from the Majority and Minority, and a timeline, which roughly double the total size of the report.  Those links are in the press release:
http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=11f4db1f-9986-4ecb-ba61-f3a8abeb2672

Hatch made a speech on the Senate floor on the report, and that is reprinted here:
http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=623c6b3c-27e8-4089-a3c9-5b7b2acc659f

David
_________________________________________________
David Keating | President | Center for Competitive Politics
124 S. West Street, Suite 201 | Alexandria, VA 22314
703-894-6799 (direct) | 703-894-6800 | 703-894-6811 Fax
www.campaignfreedom.org<http://www.campaignfreedom.org>

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 10:42 AM
To: law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 8/6/15

“How to Save the Voting Rights Act”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74899>
Posted on August 6, 2015 7:30 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74899> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

[bumping to the top for today’s 50th anniversary of the VRA; see also my coverage <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74972> of yesterday’s very important 5th Circuit Texas voter id ruling.]

I have written this 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 50th 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, like Jim 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 50th 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.
[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 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>
“First draft of congressional map shakes up some districts”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75051>
Posted on August 6, 2015 7:26 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75051> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Miami Herald reports.<http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article30190932.html>

See also this Fred Grimm column<http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/fred-grimm/article30155730.html>.
[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in Uncategorized<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 on August 6, 2015 7:23 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75049> by Rick 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.
[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in campaign 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 on August 6, 2015 7:21 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75047> by Rick 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 report at this link<http://www.finance.senate.gov/library/reports/committee/download/?id=8ff9a3ac-74f8-4ec0-a554-40525529920c>.

[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in campaign 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 on August 6, 2015 7:17 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75045> by Rick 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.
[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in campaign 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 on August 6, 2015 7:15 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75043> by Rick 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 andBearing the Cross, won the Pulitzer Prize, and was a visiting fellow at the Joint Center in 1984.

[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in Voting 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 on August 6, 2015 7:11 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75041> by Rick 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 administration negotiated 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/>.
[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in campaign 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 on August 6, 2015 7:04 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75039> by Rick 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>
[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in Voting 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 on August 6, 2015 7:03 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75037> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

HuffPo reports.<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/voting-rights-act-50-years_55c12a20e4b05c05b01f6a0c?6zoj38fr>
[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Texas voter ID law ruled invalid — in part”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75035>
Posted on August 6, 2015 7:00 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75035> by Rick 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 with my 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.

[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in Supreme 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 on August 6, 2015 6:55 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75032> by Rick 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&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region> for The New York Times oped page.
[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in Voting 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 on August 6, 2015 6:54 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75030> by Rick 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.
[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“The Voting Rights Umbrella”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75028>
Posted on August 6, 2015 6:53 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75028> by Rick 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.
[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in Supreme 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 on August 5, 2015 5:53 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75026> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Here<https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CLr5faVUcAA4erl.jpg>, via Chris Geidner<https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/629089421736996868>, whose story on the ruling is here at Buzzfeed<http://t.co/aLGCFlX0A6>.
[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in The 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 on August 5, 2015 4:40 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75022> by Rick 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.

[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
“Kobach to file charges in voter fraud cases”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75020>
Posted on August 5, 2015 4:35 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75020> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

KWCH reports.<http://www.kwch.com/news/local-news/kobach-to-file-charges-in-voter-fraud-cases/34561048>
[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in fraudulent 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 on August 5, 2015 4:28 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75018> by Rick 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==>.
[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in campaign 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 on August 5, 2015 4:25 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75016> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Fortune reports.<http://fortune.com/2015/08/05/corporate-political-donations/>
[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Jigsaw Puzzle Politics in the Sunshine State”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75014>
Posted on August 5, 2015 4:22 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75014> by Rick 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>
[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
Links to Some of My Recent Writings on the VRA 50th, Etc.<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75012>
Posted on August 5, 2015 4:14 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75012> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The folks @UCILaw put 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.
[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Redistricting Could Have the Most Disparate Effect”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75010>
Posted on August 5, 2015 4:01 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75010> by Rick 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.
[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in redistricting<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 on August 5, 2015 3:59 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75008> by Rick 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.
[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in election 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 on August 5, 2015 3:57 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75006> by Rick 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/>
[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in The 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 on August 5, 2015 1:57 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75002> by Rick 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.
[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in The 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 on August 5, 2015 1:12 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74999> by Rick 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.
[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in Uncategorized<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 on August 5, 2015 12:35 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74972> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

[bumping to top]

A unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has issued an 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. SeeTEX. 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.]
[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in election 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 on August 5, 2015 12:29 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74993> by Rick 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 supporting same-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 Court at this link<http://courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/supreme/lawcourt/2015/15me103no.pdf>.

Next stop SCOTUS?

[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“GOP suit: Florida redistricting law equals ‘thought policing'”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74991>
Posted on August 5, 2015 12:17 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74991> by Rick 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.

[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
“Two years after scandal, the IRS still struggling”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74970>
Posted on August 5, 2015 10:57 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74970> by Rick 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.
[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in campaign 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 on August 5, 2015 10:04 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74968> by Rick 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 from an 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.
[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in campaign 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 on August 5, 2015 7:44 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74964> by Rick 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.
[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in campaign 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 on August 5, 2015 7:34 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74962> by Rick 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 into Gov. 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 its ruling 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.

[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in campaign 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 on August 5, 2015 7:32 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74960> by Rick 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.”).
[cid:image001.png at 01D0D043.C55B5DF0]<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 in campaign 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<mailto: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/d090b996/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150806/d090b996/attachment.png>