[EL] ELB News and Commentary 12/2/15

Rick Hasen rhasen at law.uci.edu
Wed Dec 2 07:31:19 PST 2015 

    GOP Candidates, Pretending to Hold Noses, Raise Money from
    Lobbyists, DC Establishment <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77947>

Posted onDecember 2, 2015 7:28 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77947>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT 
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/02/g-o-p-candidates-feeling-rush-to-raise-funds-turn-to-unlikely-source/>on 
the dog bites man story.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77947&title=GOP%20Candidates%2C%20Pretending%20to%20Hold%20Noses%2C%20Raise%20Money%20from%20Lobbyists%2C%20DC%20Establishment&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,lobbying 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>


    “The Questionable Ways of Albany, Exposed at Sheldon Silver’s Trial”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77945>

Posted onDecember 2, 2015 7:26 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77945>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Great read at the NYT. 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/nyregion/the-questionable-ways-of-albany-exposed-at-sheldon-silvers-trial.html?ref=politics&_r=0>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77945&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20Questionable%20Ways%20of%20Albany%2C%20Exposed%20at%20Sheldon%20Silver%E2%80%99s%20Trial%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inchicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>,lobbying 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>


    “A Fourth Path in Evenwel: What Campaign Finance Jurisprudence Tells
    Us About Legislative Redistricting”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77943>

Posted onDecember 2, 2015 7:16 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77943>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Michael Morley blogs 
<http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/12/a-fourth-path-in-evenwel-what-campaign.html>at 
Balkinization.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77943&title=%26%238220%3BA%20Fourth%20Path%20in%20Evenwel%3A%20What%20Campaign%20Finance%20Jurisprudence%20Tells%20Us%20About%20Legislative%20Redistricting%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,redistricting 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “Freedom Caucus to Battle McConnell on Campaign Finance”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77941>

Posted onDecember 2, 2015 7:13 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77941>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Didn’t 
seethis<http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/123906/freedom-caucus-battle-mcconnell-campaign-finance>coming:

    House con­ser­vat­ives are de­cry­ing an at­tempt by Re­pub­lic­an
    lead­ers to loosen cam­paign spend­ing lim­its, band­ing Demo­crats
    to­geth­er with anti­es­tab­lish­ment Re­pub­lic­ans and open­ing up
    a rare in­tra-party split on an is­sue that usu­ally unites the GOP.

    The dus­tup comes as Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell is
    push­ing to do away with lim­its on spend­ing by polit­ic­al parties
    in co­ordin­a­tion with can­did­ates. As first re­por­ted
    by/Politico/, Mc­Con­nell is try­ing to at­tach a pro­vi­sion to the
    om­ni­bus spend­ing bill that would al­low party groups, such as the
    Re­pub­lic­an Na­tion­al Com­mit­tee and the Demo­crat­ic Na­tion­al
    Com­mit­tee, to spend un­lim­ited sums in co­ordin­a­tion with party
    nom­in­ees.

    That would al­low the parties to fin­ance ad­vert­ise­ments and
    oth­er cam­paign needs in co­ordin­a­tion with can­did­ates, as long
    as the money is not dir­ectly donated to the can­did­ates.

    Mem­bers of the House Free­dom Caucus, however, are ar­guing that
    the meas­ure is an at­tempt by the GOP es­tab­lish­ment to
    con­sol­id­ate power to box out can­did­ates who do not toe the
    party line, and they are mak­ing it one of their top tar­gets in
    ne­go­ti­ations over must-pass spend­ing le­gis­la­tion. Rep. Mick
    Mul­vaney, a found­ing mem­ber of the Free­dom Caucus, said Tues­day
    that loosen­ing the lim­its would send the wrong mes­sage as GOP
    voters are clam­or­ing for a party out­sider in the pres­id­en­tial
    elec­tion.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77941&title=%26%238220%3BFreedom%20Caucus%20to%20Battle%20McConnell%20on%20Campaign%20Finance%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


    Why Has WI Gov. Walker Delayed Signing Bill Killing GAB?
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77939>

Posted onDecember 2, 2015 7:10 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77939>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Interesting <http://watchdog.org/249513/gab-scott-walker-bill/>.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77939&title=Why%20Has%20WI%20Gov.%20Walker%20Delayed%20Signing%20Bill%20Killing%20GAB%3F&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


    “A simple fix for big money in politics: Tax campaign spending”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77937>

Posted onDecember 2, 2015 7:08 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77937>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Daniel Nemirovsky WaPo oped. 
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-simple-fix-for-big-money-in-politics-tax-campaign-expenditures/2015/12/01/3ed2a60e-4dba-11e5-84df-923b3ef1a64b_story.html>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77937&title=%26%238220%3BA%20simple%20fix%20for%20big%20money%20in%20politics%3A%20Tax%20campaign%20spending%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


    “The New York Times Gets Money and Politics Wrong”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77935>

Posted onDecember 2, 2015 7:06 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77935>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

John McGinnis 
<http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/11/30/the-new-york-times-gets-money-and-politics-wrong/>:

    Nicholas Confessore’s long front-page article in Monday’s New York
    Times, “Rauner and his Wealthy Friends Are Remaking Illinois,”
    raises concerns about the power of rich individuals to influence
    elections. The article both subtly and overtly argues that rich
    people are using their money to overturn the kind of government
    citizens of Illinois want.  But it actually shows the importance of
    preserving the First Amendment right to push back against the
    ingrained biases of the government and the media, like the New York
    Times itself.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77935&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20New%20York%20Times%20Gets%20Money%20and%20Politics%20Wrong%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme 
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “Clearing the Political Thicket: Why Political Gerrymandering for
    Partisan Advantage is Unconstitutional”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77933>

Posted onDecember 2, 2015 7:02 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77933>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Michael Parsons has postedthis draft 
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2698183>on SSRN. 
Here is the abstract:

    A corrosive concept has infected the roots of our democracy. This
    insidious notion, which has eluded judicial grasp, is that
    legislators may constitutionally draw electoral districts for the
    purpose of securing their own victory (i.e., “incumbency advantage”)
    or the victory of their party (i.e., “political advantage”).
    Political gerrymandering is popularly perceived as being
    disreputable but legal. This is only half-true. The Supreme Court
    has explicitly recognized that political gerrymandering may offend
    constitutional principles. Unfortunately, it has failed to
    articulate when this is the case and why. This Article seeks to
    answer those questions.

    A careful reading of Supreme Court precedent exposes that electoral
    advantage is not a legitimate state interest. Those who claim legal
    cover to pursue political gain through the redistricting process
    have ignored three critical distinctions. These conceptual snares
    have spawned a set of false premises that this Article aims to
    elucidate and dispel: (1) the assumption that legislators’ personal
    considerations are synonymous with the legislature’s state
    interests; (2) the assumption that the constitutionality of
    political gerrymandering turns on the degree of “political interest”
    sought rather than the type of “political interest” sought; and (3)
    the assumption that there is one political gerrymandering offense
    rather than two: dilution and sorting.

    This Article canvasses the history of redistricting case law and
    provides precedential authority for judges and litigants alike to
    identify and uproot the nettlesome notions that have plagued
    political gerrymandering claims to date. Naming these misconceptions
    points a way out of the wilderness and cuts a clear course through
    the political thicket. The Article proceeds as follows: Part I
    surveys the background and current state of redistricting law. Part
    II explores the analytical pitfalls that have plagued political
    gerrymandering claims to date. Part III proposes a path for pursuing
    such claims going forward.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77933&title=%26%238220%3BClearing%20the%20Political%20Thicket%3A%20Why%20Political%20Gerrymandering%20for%20Partisan%20Advantage%20is%20Unconstitutional%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “Wisconsin Supreme Court won’t reopen John Doe probe, rules against
    special prosecutor” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77931>

Posted onDecember 2, 2015 6:54 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77931>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Patrick Marley 
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/wisconsin-supreme-court-wont-reopen-john-doe-probe-rules-against-special-prosecutor-b99626790z1-359988701.html>:

    The state Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled a special prosecutor had
    been improperly appointed to oversee an investigation of Gov. Scott
    Walker’s campaign and conservative groups but determined evidence
    gathered in that probe should be retained by the court rather than
    destroyed.

    The 4-1 ruling stuck with its July decision that ended the
    investigation and concluded groups and candidates can work together
    closely.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77931&title=%26%238220%3BWisconsin%20Supreme%20Court%20won%26%238217%3Bt%20reopen%20John%20Doe%20probe%2C%20rules%20against%20special%20prosecutor%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,chicanery 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


    Ted Cruz: Souter = Roberts(!) <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77929>

Posted onDecember 2, 2015 6:53 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77929>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Sahil Kapur interview 
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-12-02/ted-cruz-vows-to-put-hard-core-conservatives-on-the-supreme-court>on 
what a Ted Cruz presidency would mean for the Supreme Court.

See also my Why The Most Urgent Civil Rights Cause Of Our Time Is The 
Supreme Court Itself 
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/supreme-court-greatest-civil-rights-cause>, 
Talking Points Memo, Sept. 28, 2015.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77929&title=Ted%20Cruz%3A%20Souter%20%3D%20Roberts%28%21%29&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “PAC shielded $2.3 million in donations by L.A. charter school
    backers” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77927>

Posted onDecember 1, 2015 8:13 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77927>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

LAT 
<http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-charter-donations-20151202-story.html>:

    Nearly $2.3 million in donations made by charter school supporters
    during this year’s Los Angeles school board races were shielded from
    disclosure until after the election was over, a review of records shows.

    Those contributions — from philanthropistEli Broad
    <http://www.latimes.com/topic/business/eli-broad-PEBSL014823-topic.html>,
    heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune, former New York City Mayor Michael R.
    Bloomberg and others — were made prior to the May 19 election to
    California Charter Schools Assn. Advocates, a political action
    committee in Sacramento. That group then forwarded campaign funds to
    a local affiliated committee.

    The Los Angeles-based PAC was required by campaign laws only to
    identify the state charter group as the source of the funding, not
    the individual donors.

    As a result, the donors remained anonymous in Los Angeles campaign
    filings. In September, the state charter group filed a required
    state report listing all its contributors.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77927&title=%26%238220%3BPAC%20shielded%20%242.3%20million%20in%20donations%20by%20L.A.%20charter%20school%20backers%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


    “Former Davidson County prosecutor enters into agreement on charges
    she offered $20,000 to get opponent out of race”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77925>

Posted onDecember 1, 2015 8:03 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77925>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Winston-Salem Journal 
<http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/former-davidson-county-prosecutor-enters-into-agreement-on-charges-she/article_19d51350-1efd-5686-9036-f5eeddadef7f.html>:

    On Tuesday, the first day she could have filed to run for a Superior
    Court seat, former Davidson County prosecutor Wendy Joyce Terry gave
    up her burgeoning political career for two years.

    Terry, 44, entered into a deferred prosecution agreement over
    allegations that she offered a $20,000 bribe to get a district court
    judge to convince her husband to drop out of a race for a superior
    court seat that Terry was also interested in.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77925&title=%26%238220%3BFormer%20Davidson%20County%20prosecutor%20enters%20into%20agreement%20on%20charges%20she%20offered%20%2420%2C000%20to%20get%20opponent%20out%20of%20race%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inbribery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>,chicanery 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


    “Lawyers for elections board want map work to proceed”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77923>

Posted onDecember 1, 2015 8:00 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77923>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

More news 
<http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/article_ea08dd7e-a8aa-52f4-9777-9ad0f860d701.html>from 
Va:

    The plaintiffs and the original defendants in Virginia’s
    congressional redistricting case want a three-judge panel to proceed
    with drawing a new map over the objections of Republicans in the
    state’s delegation.

    Lawyers for the plaintiffs say congressional Republicans’ motion to
    suspend the proceedings, pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s review of
    the GOP appeal, is “simply the latest in a series of efforts to
    delay this court’s correction of the unconstitutional racial
    gerrymander” in Virginia’s 3rd District.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77923&title=%26%238220%3BLawyers%20for%20elections%20board%20want%20map%20work%20to%20proceed%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “Democrats accuse rogue elections official of compromising voter
    privacy” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77921>

Posted onDecember 1, 2015 7:58 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77921>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo news 
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/democrats-accuse-rogue-elections-official-of-compromising-voter-privacy/2015/12/01/1f763ce4-985b-11e5-b499-76cbec161973_story.html>from 
Va:

    Elections officials in Prince William County this week asked the
    Commonwealth’s attorney to investigate one of their own.

    They say Guy Anthony Guiffré, a member of the county electoral
    board, might have broken state and federal laws in his quest to
    determine whether someone improperly used technology to impersonate
    voters in last month’s election.

    At issue is a state rule that says a voter can apply for an absentee
    ballot online using an electronic signature instead of the
    old-fashioned way — with paper and pen.

    Guiffré, a Republican, says the system opens the door to fraud. To
    prove it, he recruited four friends — while the county’s registrar
    was away — to inspect 151 absentee ballot documents and registration
    records laden with Social Security numbers and other personal
    information. In doing so, Democrats say, he compromised the
    meticulous process used to handle ballots, usurped his authority and
    violated voter privacy.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77921&title=%26%238220%3BDemocrats%20accuse%20rogue%20elections%20official%20of%20compromising%20voter%20privacy%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inchicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>,election 
administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


    “Supreme Court Case Threatens Representation of Children and
    Non-Citizens” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77919>

Posted onDecember 1, 2015 7:39 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77919>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Release:

    *Supreme Court Case Threatens Representation of Children and
    Non-Citizens*

    An Analysis of the Potential Impact of Evenwel v. Abbott on
    Redistricting

    *Report and Interactive Maps*

    New York, NY, December 2, 2015

    Population equality is the main criteria for creating legislative
    districts in the US, but a proposed change could drastically alter
    how people are counted and how districts are drawn.  On December 8,
    2015, the Supreme Court will hear the case of Evenwel v. Abbott,
    whose plaintiffs argue that legislative districts should be based
    upon the number of voters or potential voters in each district
    instead of all residents.

    Social Explorer’s Andrew Beveridge analyzes the effects of such a
    change in the report*The Threat to Representation for Children and
    Non-Citizens: An Analysis of the Potential Impact of Evenwel v.
    Abbott on Redistricting*
    <http://static.socialexplorer.com/evenwel/Evenwell_Impact_Report.pdf>*,*which
    is available for download
    here:http://static.socialexplorer.com/evenwel/Evenwell_Impact_Report.pdf

    Social Explorer also developed a companioninteractive tool
    <http://www.socialexplorer.com/evenwel>(available
    athttp://www.socialexplorer.com/evenwel) to visualize how state
    legislative and congressional districts would need to change and
    which groups would be affected.  Explore the maps to see the impact
    nationwide and zoom in for a close up on your local community.  Link
    to the tool to engage your readers.

    “If the Court should rule for the plaintiffs, virtually all
    legislative districting plans in the United States would need to be
    redrawn, and children and non-citizens would no longer count towards
    representation,” said Beveridge.

    Using the data that would have been available in 2011 to draw
    districts, Beveridge estimated the effect on every State Legislative
    and Congressional District in the United States (the 2010 Census and
    2006-10 American Community Survey, from which the U.S. Census Bureau
    tabulates Citizens of Voting Age Population for various ethnic and
    racial communities at the block group level). These data are also
    available for download through theinteractive tool
    <http://www.socialexplorer.com/evenwel/>.

    Adhering to the widely-used standards for the division of districts
    (that state legislative districts should be within five percent of
    the average district size and congressional districts must be
    equal), the following results were found:

  *

        Nearly half of upper house legislative districts would no longer
        be of legal size compared to the new eligible-voter based
        average district size (49.9 percent or 974 of 1951).

  *

        Over half of the lower house legislative districts would also
        need to be redrawn (57.2 percent or 2,739 of 4,792).

  *

        More than two thirds of congressional districts would be beyond
        two percent of the eligible-voter based average district size
        (69.7 percent).

  *

        There would be a substantial power shift away from areas with
        school age children, Hispanics, Asians and non-Citizens towards
        areas with older residents, who were more likely citizens and
        non-Hispanic white

  *

        The equivalent of almost five congressional seats (4.89) would
        switch from Democratic to Republican control.

  * There might be even more impact in terms of the concerns of each
    party as fewer Hispanics and parents with children would have a
    voice, while the influence of the childless and non-Hispanic
    communities would grow in power (especially in Texas, New York City,
    and California).

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77919&title=%26%238220%3BSupreme%20Court%20Case%20Threatens%20Representation%20of%20Children%20and%20Non-Citizens%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    Read the Reply Brief in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting
    Commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77916>

Posted onDecember 1, 2015 5:05 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77916>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

You can find ithere. 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Harris-v.-AIRC-reply.pdf>

More about the Supreme Court case, being argued Dec. 8,here at 
SCOTUSBlog 
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/harris-v-arizona-independent-redistricting-commission/?wpmp_switcher=desktop>.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77916&title=Read%20the%20Reply%20Brief%20in%20Harris%20v.%20Arizona%20Independent%20Redistricting%20Commission&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “When No News is Good News” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77914>

Posted onDecember 1, 2015 4:52 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77914>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

CLC 
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/news/blog/when-no-news-good-news>on 
the cert. denial in the Hawaii campaign finance case.

My earlier coverage ishere <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77877>.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77914&title=%26%238220%3BWhen%20No%20News%20is%20Good%20News%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme 
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “Perpetuating “One Person, ‘One Vote’ Errors”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77911>

Posted onDecember 1, 2015 11:13 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77911>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

This new one 
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2697719>from Derek 
Muller (forthcoming Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy) going to 
the top of my reading list:

    More than fifty years after Baker v. Carr, “one person, one vote”
    remains essentially inviolable. Among the consequences of a series
    of redistricting cases, the Court compelled “that the seats in both
    houses of a bicameral state legislature must be apportioned on a
    population basis.” The judiciary had effectively nationalized the
    composition of all fifty state legislatures. But its mantra was
    mercifully limited. Shortly after the Court’s entry into the
    political thicket, it recognized that myriad unanswered questions
    remained, and it refused to refine its mantra any further.
    “Population basis” was deemed expansive enough to permit a
    representative body to draw districts on bases other than total
    population, including citizens and voters. The judiciary had ended
    its articulation of political theories that would forever bind the
    States. Instead, the States could continue to act within our
    federalist system and draw districts on the basis of some legitimate
    population total, acting in the absence of specific judicial directive.
    This Article examines an under-discussed element of the
    reapportionment cases—the extent to which the parties themselves and
    the clerks to the Supreme Court justices resisted advancing the kind
    of sweeping claims that the Supreme Court ultimately embraced. The
    Court’s errors in the redistricting cases arose in spite of repeated
    guidance from the litigants before the Court and the justices’ own
    clerks to decide the cases in a narrower fashion, or pursuant to
    existing constitutional standards. Through archival research, this
    Article demonstrates that all parties were reluctant to redefine all
    state legislatures under a single (and undertheorized) political
    definition. The Court took little heed of such modest proposals and
    instituted sweeping claims about how state legislatures ought to
    look. The Article then identifies the circumstances in which the
    Court finally embraced restraint—it permitted States to choose an
    appropriate population basis for drawing legislative districts,
    leaving the matter to the sound discretion of the several States.
    The Article identifies a lost footnote in an early draft of Burns v.
    Richardson, which would have articulated the most lucid basis for
    deferring to the States when they selected the appropriate
    redistricting population. The Article then reflects on the proposed
    expansion of these sweeping claims in Evenwel v. Abbott, an attempt
    to return to the judicial nationalization of state legislatures
    articulated in Baker and its progeny. The Article calls for an end
    to these redistricting errors and for greater deference to the States.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77911&title=%26%238220%3BPerpetuating%20%26%238220%3BOne%20Person%2C%20%26%238216%3BOne%20Vote%26%238217%3B%20Errors%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “Native Hawaiian election voting extended by 3 weeks, pending US
    Supreme Court decision” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77909>

Posted onDecember 1, 2015 9:08 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77909>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Interesting developments in Hawaii. I had suggeste 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77853>d that Justice Kennedy’s order 
stopping (at least for now <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77879>) the 
counting of votes in a Native Hawaiian election could deter some people 
from voting. Well it seems the people running the election agreed 
and,according to AP, 
<http://www.startribune.com/hawaiian-election-voting-extended-pending-court-decision/359004301/>have 
extended the voting:

    The organization guiding a Native Hawaiian election is extending
    voting by three weeks after a U.S. Supreme Court justice temporarily
    blocked vote counting.

    Nai Aupuni says voting is extended to Dec. 21 because voters may not
    have cast ballots over concerns and questions about Justice Anthony
    Kennedy’s order.

I wonder now if there will be a new dispute over the voting extension.

(More atHawaii News Now. 
<http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/30630752/native-hawaiian-voting-deadline-extended-after-us-supreme-court-justice-issues-temporary-stay-blocking-vote-counts>) 
There’s no notation on theSupreme Court 
docket<http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/15a551.htm>of 
any official notification to the Court of this extension. But the docket 
is not always updated promptly and it is possible notice was given to 
Justice Kennedy via the clerk more informally.

Stay tuned.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77909&title=%26%238220%3BNative%20Hawaiian%20election%20voting%20extended%20by%203%20weeks%2C%20pending%20US%20Supreme%20Court%20decision%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,voting 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>


    “Ballot Battles: What Our History of Election Disputes Can Teach Us”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77907>

Posted onDecember 1, 2015 8:57 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77907>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Event announcement 
<http://bipartisanpolicy.org/events/ballot-battles-what-our-history-of-election-disputes-can-teach-us/>:

    WHEN:*Monday, December 7th 2015 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET*

    WHERE:*Bipartisan Policy Center, 1225 Eye Street NW, Suite 1000,
    Washington, DC, 20005*

    ➤ REGISTER NOW
    <http://bpcevents.cloudapp.net/Pages/Home.aspx?eventid=%7b991AC2B7-3A8D-E511-8121-C4346BAC5700%7d>

    Close elections are not a matter of ‘if.’ Instead, as author Ned
    Foley notes in his forthcoming book/Ballot Battles: The History of
    Disputed Elections in the United States/, “every year, somewhere in
    the country there is a state legislative race (or some other form of
    local election) that gets decided by just a handful of votes.”
    Sometimes the contests are national. Just 15 years after the
    Bush-Gore disputed election, the question remains: will the next big
    recount controversy be decided with any better procedures than we
    had in 2000?

    Join us, along with the National Capital-Area Political Science
    Association, on December 7 as the author and a panel discuss some of
    our country’s closest, most bitterly disputed contests and what
    learning from the past means for the future of election policy.

    Join the discussion on Twitter:@BPC_Bipartisan
    <http://twitter.com/@BPC_Bipartisan>#BPClive

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77907&title=%26%238220%3BBallot%20Battles%3A%20What%20Our%20History%20of%20Election%20Disputes%20Can%20Teach%20Us%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


    Coming in Time for Spring Classes: My Glannon Guide to Torts (3d ed.
    2016) <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77155>

Posted onDecember 1, 2015 8:15 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77155>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

[/Bumping to top as this book isnow available 
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1454846887/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d0_i2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=desktop-1&pf_rd_r=08KCVF6QWR9B2X38T7YV&pf_rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=2079475242&pf_rd_i=desktop>.]/

I’m happy to announce the upcoming publication of the third edition of 
my Glannon Guide to Torts. This is a student mini-treatise with practice 
multiple choice questions and answers aimed at helping first year law 
students with their Torts course.

Here’s what’s new for the Third Edition:

·      New coverage of “lost chance causation”
·      Update on market share and “risk contribution” theories of 
liability, and related constitutional claims.
·      Analysis of new Third Restatement of Torts sections on assault 
and battery, and new rules on transferred intent
·      Analysis of new tort proposed in Third Restatement: purposeful 
infliction of bodily harm
·      Updated with new Supreme Court cases on preemption, and the now 
questionable presumption against preemption
·      New section on products liability post-sale duties to warn and recall
If you are an instructor and want to order this book as a required or 
optional book for your course, the ISBN is 978-1454846888.  It is not 
yet on the Wolters Kluwer page, but here is theAmazon pre-order page 
<http://www.amazon.com/Glannon-Guide-Torts-Multiple-Choice-Questions/dp/1454846887/ref=sr_1_fkmr2_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1446215389&sr=8-2-fkmr2&keywords=glannon+guide+to+torts+3rd+edition>.
Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77155&title=Coming%20in%20Time%20for%20Spring%20Classes%3A%20My%20Glannon%20Guide%20to%20Torts%20%283d%20ed.%202016%29&description=>
Posted inTorts <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=35>


-- 
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/20151202/2cb3213d/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/20151202/2cb3213d/attachment.png>

View list directory