[EL] ELB News and Commentary 12/7/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Mon Dec 7 08:23:03 PST 2015
“Backlash grows over McConnell’s campaign spending measure”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78099>
Posted onDecember 7, 2015 8:20 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78099>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Hill reports.
<http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/262197-backlash-grows-over-mcconnells-campaign-spending-measure>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78099&title=%26%238220%3BBacklash%20grows%20over%20McConnell%26%238217%3Bs%20campaign%20spending%20measure%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,political
parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,political polarization
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>
“What Will the Presidential Elections Cost Us?”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78096>
Posted onDecember 7, 2015 8:12 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78096>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
My kickoff event
<http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/event/?postId=66754>for thePlutocrats
United book tour and talks <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77845>will be
the day the book is released, January 12
<http://www.amazon.com/Plutocrats-United-Campaign-Distortion-Elections/dp/0300212453/>,
in my hometown of Los Angeles withZocalo Public Square
<http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/event/?postId=66754>:
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2016 7:30 PM
LOS ANGELES
What Will the Presidential Elections Cost Us?
Richard L. Hasen
What Will the Presidential Elections Cost Us?
*LOCATION:*
Grand Central Market
317 S Broadway
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Parking is $6 after 5 PM at 308 S. Hill St., just south of 3rd St.
Our presidential elections cost us billions in dollars—and they can cost
even more in terms of their impact on our civic culture and
understanding of issues. But it isn’t always easy to identify exactly
how money shapes our politics. How exactly do campaign dollars affect
our lives, our laws, and our American democracy? What can we do about
the fact that more and more money in our elections is coming from fewer
and fewer very wealthy people?*Richard L. Hasen*, Chancellor’s Professor
of Law and Political Science at the University of California, Irvine and
author of/Plutocrats United: Campaign Money, the Supreme Court, and the
Distortion of American Elections/, visits Zócalo to explain how U.S.
elections came to be dominated by money, and what citizens might do to
help reform our politics.
/Photo courtesy ofAqua
<http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-14067109/stock-vector-vector-usa-flag-dollar.html?src=csl_recent_image-1>./
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78096&title=%26%238220%3BWhat%20Will%20the%20Presidential%20Elections%20Cost%20Us%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Plutocrats United
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Justice Kagan on Textualism’s Success”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78094>
Posted onDecember 7, 2015 8:03 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78094>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Insightful
post<http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2015/12/justice-kagan-on-textualisms-victory.html#more>from
Richard Re.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78094&title=%26%238220%3BJustice%20Kagan%20on%20Textualism%26%238217%3Bs%20Success%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted instatutory interpretation
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=21>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Argument preview: Does ‘one person, one vote’ yield to partisan
politics or the Voting Rights Act?”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78092>
Posted onDecember 7, 2015 7:59 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78092>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Amy Howe of SCOTUSBlog
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/12/argument-preview-does-one-person-one-vote-yield-to-partisan-politics-or-the-voting-rights-act/>previews
/Harris v.Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/harris-v-arizona-independent-redistricting-commission/?wpmp_switcher=desktop>/,
being argued just before /Evenwel/tomorrow.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78092&title=%26%238220%3BArgument%20preview%3A%20Does%20%26%238216%3Bone%20person%2C%20one%20vote%26%238217%3B%20yield%20to%20partisan%20politics%20or%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Campaign Legal Center Urges Quick Action on Bill to Improve
Disclosure of TV Stations’ Political Files”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78090>
Posted onDecember 7, 2015 7:50 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78090>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Release.
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/news/press-releases/campaign-legal-center-urges-quick-action-bill-improve-disclosure-tv-stations>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78090&title=%26%238220%3BCampaign%20Legal%20Center%20Urges%20Quick%20Action%20on%20Bill%20to%20Improve%20Disclosure%20of%20TV%20Stations%E2%80%99%20Political%20Files%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Up Next at the Supreme Court: A Challenge to Equality for All
Americans” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78088>
Posted onDecember 7, 2015 7:44 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78088>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
David Gans at /TNR/
<https://newrepublic.com/article/124955/next-supreme-court-challenge-equality-americans>on
Ed Blum’s/Fisher and Evenwel/cases: “The Fourteenth Amendment—which
turns 150 next year—is at the heart of both /Evenwel/and/Fisher/. In
both cases, Blum’s argument depends on turning a blind eye to the basic
facts of Fourteenth Amendment history.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78088&title=%26%238220%3BUp%20Next%20at%20the%20Supreme%20Court%3A%20A%20Challenge%20to%20Equality%20for%20All%20Americans%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“The Impact of Evenwel: How Using Voters Instead of People Would
Dramatically Change Redistricting” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78086>
Posted onDecember 7, 2015 7:42 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78086>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
New Brennan Center report
<https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/impact-evenwel-how-using-voters-instead-people-would-dramatically-change-redistricting>:
A big upheaval could be coming for America’s state legislatures. On
December 8, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in/Evenwel v.
Abbott/
<https://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/evenwel-v-abbott>/,/a
closely watched case from Texas that will decide whether states must
change the way they draw legislative districts. The new analysis in
this paper shows that if the/Evenwel/challengers prevail, the
nationwide impact will be far greater than previously assumed.
Like other states, Texas currently draws districts so they contain a
roughly equal number of people rather than voters. Indeed, over the
course of American history districts have overwhelmingly been drawn
this way. But the/Evenwel/challengers say Texas’s legislative plans
are unconstitutional because while districts may contain
approximately the same number of/people/, many vary widely in the
number of eligible/voter/
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78086&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20Impact%20of%20Evenwel%3A%20How%20Using%20Voters%20Instead%20of%20People%20Would%20Dramatically%20Change%20Redistricting%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“A Gift From Congress, to Congress”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78084>
Posted onDecember 7, 2015 7:40 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78084>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT editorial:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/a-gift-from-congress-to-congress.html?_r=1>
In a delicious bit of irony, Mr. McConnell needs Democratic support
to pass his rider, becausethe Tea Party mavericks are opposing him
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/house-freedom-caucus-campaign-finance-216352>.
They say the extra cash would chiefly benefit establishment
candidates, not Tea Party members, who are financed by super PACs
and grass-roots donors outside the national party apparatus.
This week, more than 100 Democratssigned a letter
<https://sarbanes.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/reps-sarbanes-deutch-and-more-than-110-members-call-on-congressional>announcing
their intentions to oppose the campaign finance riders. The spending
bill is the last legislation Congress will consider before lawmakers
go home for the holiday recess. Democrats should do the right thing
and strip these four bad riders from the bill.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78084&title=%26%238220%3BA%20Gift%20From%20Congress%2C%20to%20Congress%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“The Freedom Caucus Objects to Political Free Speech”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78082>
Posted onDecember 7, 2015 7:38 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78082>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
David Keating and Brad SmithWSJ oped
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-freedom-caucus-objects-to-political-free-speech-1449444882>:
Fights over campaign-finance laws are, more than other political
struggles, fights over power. When power changes hands, new
regulations are often put in place to benefit the victors’ political
fortunes. The temptation to use speech regulation to hamper
political opponents is ever present and too often irresistible.
That’s why it’s disheartening to see the House Freedom Caucus
hypocritically object to a proposal by Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell—which would be part of a crucial spending bill that
Congress must pass by Dec. 11—to lift the limit on how much
political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates.
This would better enable parties to work directly with their
candidates. It’s not the government’s role to regulate this speech.
Mr. McConnell’s proposal is strongly pro-First Amendment.
The conservatives in the Freedom Caucus, who are often at odds with
the Republican Party leadership, believe they are more likely to get
help from super PACs. If the party can more easily spend funds in
coordination with candidates, but other groups cannot, they fear
that they’ll be at a disadvantage in intraparty battles. And so many
have announced opposition to removing restrictions on parties unless
they are also removed from super PACs. Says Caucus member Mick
Mulvaney, “It effectively empowers the establishment wing of both
parties.”
That’s wrong. Mr. McConnell’s proposal applies only to general
elections, and the law limits party-coordinated expenditures in
primaries to the same amount—$5,000—as regular PACs.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78082&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20Freedom%20Caucus%20Objects%20to%20Political%20Free%20Speech%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“After CREW Calls Him Out, Top Corporate Lobbyist Files Disclosures”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78080>
Posted onDecember 7, 2015 7:34 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78080>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
See here.
<http://www.citizensforethics.org/blog/entry/after-crew-calls-him-out-top-corporate-lobbyist-files-disclosures>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78080&title=%26%238220%3BAfter%20CREW%20Calls%20Him%20Out%2C%20Top%20Corporate%20Lobbyist%20Files%20Disclosures%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inlobbying <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
“‘Mad As A Wet Hen In A Thunderstorm’: Ohio Confronts Problem Of
Late, Un-Postmarked VBM Ballots” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78078>
Posted onDecember 7, 2015 7:33 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78078>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
A ChapinBlog.
<http://editions.lib.umn.edu/electionacademy/2015/12/07/mad-as-a-wet-hen-in-a-thunderstorm-ohio-confronts-problem-of-late-un-postmarked-vbm-ballots/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78078&title=%26%238220%3B%26%238216%3BMad%20As%20A%20Wet%20Hen%20In%20A%20Thunderstorm%26%238217%3B%3A%20Ohio%20Confronts%20Problem%20Of%20Late%2C%20Un-Postmarked%20VBM%20Ballots%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inabsentee ballots <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>,election
administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“Will Any DA Appeal High Court John Doe Ruling?”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78076>
Posted onDecember 6, 2015 7:14 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78076>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The latest
<http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2015/12/04/will-any-da-appeal-high-court-john-doe-ruling/>from
WI.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78076&title=%26%238220%3BWill%20Any%20DA%20Appeal%20High%20Court%20John%20Doe%20Ruling%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,chicanery
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
The Missing Footnote in Burns v. Richardson, and Its Relevance to
Evenwel <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78070>
Posted onDecember 6, 2015 2:59 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78070>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
For those following theEvenwel one person, one vote case
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/evenwel-v-abbott/?wpmp_switcher=desktop>,
which the Supreme Court is hearing this week, one question is how much
the Court has already settled the issue of whether a state has
discretion to use total population or total (eligible or registered)
voters in drawing districts. I’ve taken the view (see my latest writing
on Evenwelhere) <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77988>, that the Court
strongly suggested in the 1966 /Burns v. Richardson
<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=900318815708885571&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr>/case
that a state has discretion to use something other than total
population, at least when the standard is not too divergent from total
population. Here are the relevant sentences explaining why Hawaii’s
decision not to use total population was okay:
Neither in/Reynolds/v./Sims/
<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3707795010433249200&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1>nor
in any other decision has this Court suggested that the States are
required to include aliens, transients, short-term or temporary
residents, or persons denied the vote for conviction of crime, in
the apportionment base by which their legislators are distributed
and against which compliance with the Equal Protection Clause is to
be measured.^[21]
<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=900318815708885571&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#[22]>
The decision to include or exclude any such group involves choices
about the nature of representation with which we have been shown no
constitutionally founded reason to interfere. Unless a choice is one
the Constitution forbids, cf.,/e. g.,//Carrington/v./Rash,/380 U. S.
89,
<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15421900499759540968&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1>the
resulting apportionment base offends no constitutional bar, and
compliance with the rule established in/Reynolds/v./Sims/
<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3707795010433249200&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1>is
to be measured thereby.
In a forthcoming article
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2697719>in the
/Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy/, Derek Muller explains that
at one point the draft opinion in /Burns/containeda footnote
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/291838224/Burns-Draft-Opinion-Warren-Box-527#>right
after “no constitutionally founded reason to interfere,” a footnote
which disappeared by the final draft. Here’s what it looked like:
Screen Shot 2015-12-06 at 2.37.52 PM
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2015-12-06-at-2.37.52-PM.png>
The omitted footnote gives further credence to the idea that this is the
state’s choice rather than something that must be determined for all
states as a matter of constitutional law. As Derek notes in his article:
“This footnote would have greatly clarified the deference given to
States in deciding the appropriate basis for redistricting. Perhaps it
was simply/because/it articulated a notion of deference to the States
that it was abolished—after all, the Court had been anything but
deferential in the last few years in these redistricting cases, and it
likely sought to reserve judgment in the future as to whether such
determinations ought to be left in the hands of the States.”
Derek could well be right, and this matters a lot. AsDan Tokaji
<https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/evenwel-and-the-next-case>and others
have argued, the big action in this case may not be whether the Supreme
Court orders the use of total voters in drawing districts (that seems
very unlikely) but whether the Court agrees with Texas that the states
continue to have full discretion in choosing the denominator or the U.S.
as amicus, which wants to enshrine total population. Dan sees the
potential for political gaming if Texas wins on this point: “if the
Court relies primarily on federalism, it will invite states to stop
counting children, non-citizens, and other non-voters when drawing
districts. Blue states will surely continue to draw districts based on
total population, but we can expect red states to choose a narrower
metric, one that diminishes the voting strength of minority communities
and others with large non-voting populations.”
Perhaps. I think if places like Texas wanted to try this they would have
tried it before under the authority of /Burns v. Richardson/. But the
tale of the omitted footnote shows that perhaps the Supreme Court feared
something just like this kind of gaming in the 1960s, and saw fit not to
give states further justifications for diverging from total population
[corrected].
It will be an interesting week.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78070&title=The%20Missing%20Footnote%20in%20Burns%20v.%20Richardson%2C%20and%20Its%20Relevance%20to%20Evenwel&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Klarner: “Assessing the Potential Impact of Evenwel v. Abbott”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78068>
Posted onDecember 6, 2015 1:01 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78068>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
New paper <http://klarnerpolitics.com/evenwel-v-abbott/>by Carl Klarner.
Here is the abstract:
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear Evenwel v. Abbott on December 8,
2015. If the high Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs,
redistricting across the country will be accomplished by nearly
equalizing the number of people eligible to vote in a jurisdiction
instead of the current standard of nearly equalizing the total
population of legislative districts. This analysis assesses the
potential impact of such a ruling on the political power of
African-Americans, Latinos, individuals residing in poverty, as well
as the extent of the electoral advantages a ruling might provide to
the Republican Party. It draws on Census data first available on
December 3, 2015 and a database of all state legislative elections
from 1968 to 2015. It finds that drawing districts on the basis of
citizens of voting age would reduce the power of Democratic state
legislators by 1.4% in state houses, 1.2% in state senates, and 1.1%
in the U.S. House. The representation of Latino state house members
would go from 8.4 to 7.4%, 6.7 to 5.8% in state senates, and 6.7 to
5.8% for the U.S. House as well.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78068&title=Klarner%3A%20%26%238220%3BAssessing%20the%20Potential%20Impact%20of%20Evenwel%20v.%20Abbott%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Let Math Save Our Democracy” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78066>
Posted onDecember 5, 2015 5:40 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78066>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Sam
Wang<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/opinion/sunday/let-math-save-our-democracy.html>NYT
Sunday Review piece:
PARTISAN gerrymandering is an offense to democracy. It creates
districts that are skewed and uncompetitive, denying voters the
ability to elect representatives who fairly reflect their views. But
on Tuesday, the Supreme Courtwill hear a case
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-232.htm>in
which a small dose of math can help the justices root out these
offenses more easily.
Redistricting may seem unglamorous, but it comes up repeatedly
before the court. Last month, the justicesheard a case
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/05/us/politics/supreme-court-justices-fear-loss-of-control-over-redistricting-cases.html>that
could streamline the path by which they receive such complaints. In
oral arguments, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. expressed his fear
that his courtcould be flooded
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/05/us/politics/supreme-court-justices-fear-loss-of-control-over-redistricting-cases.html>with
complex redistricting cases. But he needn’t be concerned. Tuesday’s
case gives the court a chance to adopt a simple statistical standard
for fairness that cuts through the legal morass.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78066&title=%26%238220%3BLet%20Math%20Save%20Our%20Democracy%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Court fulfills voters’ will on reform: Where We Stand”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78064>
Posted onDecember 5, 2015 3:59 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78064>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Orlando Sentinel editorial:
<http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-ed-redistricting-resolved-supreme-court-20151203-story.html>
Floridians have waited a long time — much too long — to see their
will to reform the redistricting process fulfilled.
On Wednesday, more than five years after 63 percent of state voters
approved the Fair Districts amendments to the Florida Constitution,
a 5-2 majority of the state Supreme Court upheld a recommendation
from Leon County Circuit Judge Terry Lewis for new boundaries for
the state’s 27 congressional districts.
The new map, submitted by a coalition that included the groups
behind the original Fair Districts campaign, would replace one from
legislators that flouted the ban on gerrymandering — rigging
districts to favor incumbents or parties — that voters adopted in 2010.
Legislative leaders have squandered $11 million in public money
defending their unconstitutional maps for Congress and the state
Senate. They’ve failed in multiple sessions to produce new maps that
would comply with the Fair Districts amendments.
The impact from this week’s high court ruling on congressional
districts, if it stands, would be felt throughout the state,
including in Central Florida.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78064&title=%26%238220%3BCourt%20fulfills%20voters%26%238217%3B%20will%20on%20reform%3A%20Where%20We%20Stand%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
Evenwel and Asian-Americans <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78062>
Posted onDecember 5, 2015 2:39 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78062>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NBC News explores.
<http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/supreme-court-begin-hearing-arguments-legislative-redistricting-case-n474301>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78062&title=Evenwel%20and%20Asian-Americans&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Supreme Court rejects emergency appeal from California antiabortion
group” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78060>
Posted onDecember 5, 2015 2:13 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78060>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
David Savage
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-anti-abortion-videos-supreme-court-20151204-story.html>for
the LAT:
The Supreme Court on Friday denied an emergency appeal from the
California-based antiabortion group behind the secretly recorded
videos ofPlanned Parenthood
<http://www.latimes.com/topic/social-issues/planned-parenthood-ORNPR0000047-topic.html>officials
discussing fetal tissue recovery.
The group, known as the Center for Medical Progress, had filed an
emergency appeal asking the high court to allow it to keep its list
of key donors and supporters confidential.
But JusticeAnthony Kennedy
<http://www.latimes.com/topic/crime-law-justice/justice-system/anthony-kennedy-PEPLT00008042-topic.html>,
who oversees appeals from California, turned down the request.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78060&title=%26%238220%3BSupreme%20Court%20rejects%20emergency%20appeal%20from%20California%20antiabortion%20group%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“U.S. Supreme Court to hear key voting rights case”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78058>
Posted onDecember 5, 2015 12:54 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78058>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Howard Mintz
<http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_29206968/u-s-supreme-court-hear-key-voting-rights>for
the San Jose Mercury News:
With the potential for a seismic shift in the political landscape of
California and other states hanging in the balance, the U.S. Supreme
Court this week takes on a case that will test the framework of the
“one person, one vote” principle that has defined political
boundaries for generations.
The high court on Tuesday will hear arguments in a case out of Texas
that threatens to upend the way states draw their political
districts based on census-driven overall population numbers — and
which could alter political influence in states such as California,
where mushrooming Latino populations in urban areas, including
illegal immigrants and other noncitizens, play a key part in shaping
political maps.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78058&title=%26%238220%3BU.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20to%20hear%20key%20voting%20rights%20case%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Hillary Clinton Fortifies Ties and Fund-Raising With Democratic
Committee” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78056>
Posted onDecember 5, 2015 12:18 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78056>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fortifies-ties-and-fund-raising-with-democratic-committee.html?ref=politics>:
Trying to build up her arsenal for a general election,Hillary
Clinton
<http://www.nytimes.com/topic/person/hillary-rodham-clinton>’s
campaign is asking donors to write big-money checks to theDemocratic
National Committee
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/d/democratic_national_committee/index.html?inline=nyt-org>while
taking a greater interest in how it is performing its duties.
In recent weeks, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign aides have started to
scrutinize what have historically been core functions of the party
committee, some of which atrophied under President Obama, according
to people briefed on the reviews.
The reviews have been undertaken at the request of Mrs. Clinton’s
campaign manager, Robby Mook, who has taken a particular interest in
how the research and communications operations are functioning,
according to the people briefed, who asked for anonymity to discuss
private deliberations. Among the questions her team is looking at,
gingerly, are staffing and dexterity in combating an increasingly
unpredictable Republican field.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78056&title=%26%238220%3BHillary%20Clinton%20Fortifies%20Ties%20and%20Fund-Raising%20With%20Democratic%20Committee%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,political parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>
2 NYT Pieces Shed Light on Current Polarization in Congress
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78054>
Posted onDecember 5, 2015 12:13 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78054>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Lawmakers Near Deal on Billions in Tax Cuts
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/politics/lawmakers-near-deal-on-billions-in-tax-cuts.html?ref=politics>:
The package would extend or make permanent around 50 temporary tax
breaks that have expired or will soon lapse. By combining business
breaks that are priorities of Republicans with tax credits for
lower-income workers and families that are critical to Democrats,
negotiators are seeking a balanced package that could transcend the
partisanship that often paralyzes Congress….
For decades, Republicans as well as many Democrats, including Mr.
Obama, have called for making some of the tax extenders permanent,
including the research credit. But they could not agree on
offsetting savings, mainly because Republicans refused to increase
other taxes.
Now, with both parties colluding to waive the pay-as-you-go
principle that legislation should not increase annual deficits, the
negotiators from the House and Senate tax committees — in
consultation with congressional leaders and the Obama administration
— have bid up the size of the package over days of talks.
Not Even Catharsis Is Seen in Senate Vote to Repeal Health Law
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/politics/not-even-catharsis-is-seen-in-senate-vote-to-repeal-health-law.html?ref=politics>:
Senate Republicans have finally fulfilled their long quest to pass
legislation repealingPresident Obama
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per>’s
landmarkhealth care law
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>,
and Congress will soon send the measure to the White House, where it
might have a chance of being folded into origami or a fleet of paper
airplanes, but no possibility of being signed into law.
While a veto is certain, putting the repeal measure on Mr. Obama’s
desk will fulfill a pledge by Republicans, highlighting how fiercely
they still oppose the law nearly six years after it was passed
solely by the votes of Democrats, the only bill of such consequence
in modern American history to be approved on a strictly party-line vote.
So, what next?
It is unclear that lawmakers have drawn constructive lessons from
the experience, and there is no sign that either party will use the
repeal vote as a cathartic turning point onto a more cooperative
path. Republicans say they will spend the election year using the
vote as part of a broader call to elect a president of their party
to get rid of the Affordable Care Act altogether. Democrats concede
cooperation from their side is unlikely.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78054&title=2%20NYT%20Pieces%20Shed%20Light%20on%20Current%20Polarization%20in%20Congress&description=>
Posted inlegislation and legislatures
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>,political polarization
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>,primaries
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
“The Daily Show Remixes Awkward Ted Cruz Footage, Asks You to ‘Cruz
Your Own Adventure” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78052>
Posted onDecember 5, 2015 11:54 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78052>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Vulture
<http://www.vulture.com/2015/12/daily-show-remixes-awkward-ted-cruz-footage.html#>reports
on the use of B roll Cruz footage for Super PAC purposes.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78052&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20Daily%20Show%20Remixes%20Awkward%20Ted%20Cruz%20Footage%2C%20Asks%20You%20to%20%E2%80%98Cruz%20Your%20Own%20Adventure%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,election law "humor"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=52>
“FEC Deadlocks on Santorum Coordination Case”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78050>
Posted onDecember 4, 2015 5:40 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78050>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bloomberg BNA
<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=80036511&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0h6e4q7v7&split=0>:
he Federal Election Commission has deadlocked in a 3-3 vote over
allegations of illegal coordination involving the 2012 presidential
campaign of former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), a super political
action committee supporting Santorum, and Foster Freiss, a wealthy
Santorum supporter who funded the super PAC, known as the Red, White
and Blue Fund.
The FEC also dismissed charges involving payments allegedly made by
the National Organization for Marriage, a nonprofit supporting
Santorum, to secure a key endorsement for his presidential campaign.
The FEC commissioners voted unanimously to exercise “prosecutorial
discretion” in dismissing these charges.
The FEC released documents Dec. 4 in an enforcement case involving
the Santorum campaign designated Matter Under Review (MUR 6740). It
was the latest in a series of enforcement matters in which
Democratic and Republican FEC commissioners split over whether to
pursue allegations involving presidential super PACs and other matters.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78050&title=%26%238220%3BFEC%20Deadlocks%20on%20Santorum%20Coordination%20Case%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,federal
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>
Evenwel Plaintiff Has Disturbing Views of Jews, Gays and Others
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78047>
Posted onDecember 4, 2015 2:34 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78047>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Wowthis Stephanie Mencimer piece
<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/evenwel-abbott-supreme-court-redistricting>at
Mother Jones. I don’t care all that much that one of Ed Blum’s Evenwel
plaintiffs believes in unicorns. But this is much more disturbing:
Evenwel is an outspoken critic of illegal immigrants, and she
hasclaimed
<http://http//titusgop.blogspot.com/2012_01_01_archive.html>on the
Titus County GOP’s website that the state’s present legislative
boundary-drawing process has the primary objective of giving “equal
representation to a block of undocumented people who are not
eligible or registered to vote.” Evenwel has also lashed out at
Muslims,warning in an
op-ed<http://www.dailytribune.net/opinion/the-islamization-of-america/article_1146bfee-1233-51e0-a6da-e308ac2d5bca.html>that
showing tolerance to them means that Shariah law could “usurp the US
Constitution.” And she has claimed that all money donated to mosques
funds jihad.
Her co-plaintiff, Ed Pfenninger, has expressed some equally
eyebrow-raising views. A Christian fundamentalist who works as a
security guard in Porter, Texas, Pfenningeroperates a YouTube
channel
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9Qdmnxz6SkqWnVN_SxUSUg>where he’s
posted hours of videos of himself expounding on his beliefs. For
instance, he’s described the Catholic Church as “the Mother of
Harlots.” He’s also said that Jews are “enemies of the cross,” and
that God created Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust because he “wanted
the Jews back into the Land.” Pfenninger also cites the Bible to
justify his belief that women with short hair are somehow shameful….
By Blum’s own standards, though, Evenwel and Pfenninger may fall
short as model plaintiffs. Blum, who says he’s known Pfenninger for
15 years, was unfamiliar with Pfenninger’s views on science and was
outraged at any suggestion that he should have vetted his
plaintiff’s religious beliefs. “These are civil rights cases. I
don’t need to quiz everyone about their views on climate change,
evolution, or global warming. I just need to know that someone is
not a bigot. If Ed Pfenninger is not a bigot, a racist, or a
homophobe or an anti-Semite, then he will fall within my purview as
a legitimate client.”
In fact, Pfenninger has written and said a number of things over the
years on his YouTube channel disparaging gays and Jews. In 2010,he
told one commenter <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51p1QGbKb14>that
in the Bible, “homosexuality is condemned as a ‘vile affection’
(Rom.1:26) and that is a universal, eternal, unchanging truth.” He’s
referred to gays as “sodomites” and has said homosexuality is a
“perversion” akin to incest.
When I directed Blum to inflammatory statements made by Pfenninger
and Evenwel, he replied via email with a short statement. “I remain
persuaded that my clients are not bigots, racists, or anti Semites.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78047&title=Evenwel%20Plaintiff%20Has%20Disturbing%20Views%20of%20Jews%2C%20Gays%20and%20Others&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151207/f25d883f/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/20151207/f25d883f/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: What-Will-the-Presidential-Elections-Cost-Us.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 944560 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151207/f25d883f/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screen-Shot-2015-12-06-at-2.37.52-PM.png
Type: image/png
Size: 355811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151207/f25d883f/attachment-0001.png>
View list directory