[EL] ELB News and Commentary 12/10/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Thu Dec 10 07:39:28 PST 2015
“Indiana Won’t Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Overturn Seventh Circuit
Ruling that struck down Limited Nominations for Judicial Races”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78215>
Posted onDecember 10, 2015 7:34 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78215>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
BAN reports.
<http://ballot-access.org/2015/12/09/indiana-wont-ask-u-s-supreme-court-to-overturn-seventh-circuit-ruling-that-struck-down-limited-nominations-for-judicial-races/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78215&title=%26%238220%3BIndiana%20Won%E2%80%99t%20Ask%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20to%20Overturn%20Seventh%20Circuit%20Ruling%20that%20struck%20down%20Limited%20Nominations%20for%20Judicial%20Races%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inalternative voting systems
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>,ballot access
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>,political parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>
“Analysis: In Redistricting, Somebody Will Be Slighted”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78213>
Posted onDecember 10, 2015 7:33 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78213>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ross Ramsey
<http://www.texastribune.org/2015/12/10/analysis-redistricting-somebody-will-be-slighted/>in
the Texas Tribune:
Some people think it’s unfair to have more eligible voters in one
legislative district than in another — that basing things solely on
total population is the wrong way to draw political maps. But that’s
only one way the lines might be seen to slight a particular group of
Texans.
The question stems from alawsuit
<http://www.texastribune.org/2015/12/08/us-supreme-court-hears-texas-redistricting-casec/>that
went to the U.S. Supreme Court this week challenging the current
maps for Texas Senate elections. The plaintiffs argue that those
maps — drawn to put approximately the same number of people in every
district — put them at a disadvantage by including unequal numbers
of eligible voters in each district.
Those districts were drawn according to total population instead of
the number of people who are eligible to vote. In the Evenwel vs.
Abbott case argued this week, two Texas voters said their votes are
diluted because Texas Senate districts have the same populations,
but not the same numbers of voters. Each voter has a louder voice in
districts with relatively fewer voters.
But the number of eligible voters in each district is far from the
only difference that might matter to Texans, whether they vote or not.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78213&title=%26%238220%3BAnalysis%3A%20In%20Redistricting%2C%20Somebody%20Will%20Be%20Slighted%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“If voting were mandatory, the U.S. would shift to the left.
Discuss.” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78211>
Posted onDecember 10, 2015 7:30 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78211>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Monkey Cage explores.
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/12/10/if-voting-were-mandatory-the-u-s-would-shift-to-the-left-discuss/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78211&title=%26%238220%3BIf%20voting%20were%20mandatory%2C%20the%20U.S.%20would%20shift%20to%20the%20left.%20Discuss.%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted invoting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
“Michigan House Endorses Straight-Ticket Ban, Ties It To No-Excuse
Absentee Voting” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78209>
Posted onDecember 10, 2015 7:22 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78209>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
A ChapinBlog.
<http://editions.lib.umn.edu/electionacademy/2015/12/10/michigan-house-endorses-straight-ticket-ban-ties-it-to-no-excuse-absentee-voting/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78209&title=%26%238220%3BMichigan%20House%20Endorses%20Straight-Ticket%20Ban%2C%20Ties%20It%20To%20No-Excuse%20Absentee%20Voting%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inabsentee ballots <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>,election
administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“Driving up California voter participation”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78207>
Posted onDecember 10, 2015 7:20 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78207>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
CA Secretary of State Alex Padilla
<http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/dec/09/padilla-california-voters/>in
Q & A with /San Diego Union Tribune./
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78207&title=%26%238220%3BDriving%20up%20California%20voter%20participation%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“California Seeks to Overturn Barrier to Kochs’ Donor List”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78205>
Posted onDecember 10, 2015 7:19 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78205>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bloomberg
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-12-09/california-seeks-to-overturn-barrier-to-koch-group-donor-list>:
California’s Democratic attorney general says she can be trusted to
keep secret the names and addresses of donors to a nonprofit started
by conservative billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch.
Still, Kamala Harris has a fight on her hands trying to get the
brothers’ Americans for Prosperity Foundation to give her access to
the same confidential data it already provides to the Internal
Revenue Service.
Harris has been sparring since last year with the foundation, which
claims its contributors may face “grotesque threats” if their
identities are revealed. The two sides faced off Wednesday before a
federal appeals court in Pasadena, California, over whether the
foundation will have to supply the information while the court
battle continues.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78205&title=%26%238220%3BCalifornia%20Seeks%20to%20Overturn%20Barrier%20to%20Kochs%26%238217%3B%20Donor%20List%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,tax law
and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
“Election Lawyers Push to Ease Party Campaign Finance Limits”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78203>
Posted onDecember 10, 2015 7:16 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78203>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bloomberg BNA
<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=80245039&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0h6k9w7c7&split=0>:
Top Republican and Democratic election lawyers appearing at a
national ethics conference reiterated arguments for easing campaign
finance rules on political parties but said they could not predict
the outcome of ongoing discussions in Congress on the issue.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78203&title=%26%238220%3BElection%20Lawyers%20Push%20to%20Ease%20Party%20Campaign%20Finance%20Limits%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,political
parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>
“History Draws a Line on ‘One Man, One Vote'”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78201>
Posted onDecember 9, 2015 4:40 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78201>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Noah Feldman writes
<http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-12-09/history-draws-a-line-on-one-man-one-vote->for
Bloomberg View.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78201&title=%26%238220%3BHistory%20Draws%20a%20Line%20on%20%26%238216%3BOne%20Man%2C%20One%20Vote%27%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Bush PAC attorney to Trump counsel: You may want to try learning
election law” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78199>
Posted onDecember 9, 2015 4:36 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78199>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Matea Gold reports
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/09/bush-pac-attorney-to-trump-counsel-you-may-want-to-try-learning-election-law/>for
WaPo.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78199&title=%26%238220%3BBush%20PAC%20attorney%20to%20Trump%20counsel%3A%20You%20may%20want%20to%20try%20learning%20election%20law%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
An Answer to Justice Kennedy’s Question in Evenwel About Relevant
Studies of One Person, One Vote <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78195>
Posted onDecember 9, 2015 3:37 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78195>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
From yesterday’s argument
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-940_c07e.pdf>:
[Texas SG Scott
Keller]:…If the Court were to try to go down the road
of requiring States to equalize within 10 percent of a
deviation, both total and voter population, States would
inevitably have to disregard many other traditional
redistricting factors, like compactness, continuity,
keeping communities together. And that would be the
opposite of what the Court has said that States have in
this context, which is the leeway to structure their
elections as part of the core function of their sovereignty.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: That sounds highly probable to me.
Has anything been written on this, or any studies on this
MR. KELLER: I don’t
JUSTICE KENNEDY: in the context of Texas.
MR. KELLER: I don’t believe so. We’re not aware of any.
And we’re also not aware that this would be practically feasible…
There is a study, a theoretical one not focused on Texas, by Paul
Edelman, a professor of law and mathematics at Vanderbilt. The study,
/Evenwel, Voting Power, and Dual Districting
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2631666>/is
forthcoming in the/Journal of Legal Studies.
/Iblogged<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75659>about an earlier version
of the paper back in August, and I said this about the paper inmy LA
Times
oped<http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1210-hasen-evenwel-voting-district-20151208-story.html>on
Evenwel:
And this is where the Rolling Stones principle comes in: A total
population standard isn’t what everyone wants, but it’s what we need
to avoid chaos.
A legislative map equalizing both total voters and total population
would violate all sound redistricting principles, breaking up
cities, separating communities of interests and producing grotesque
shapes. Indeed, after Keller made these points, Kennedy seemed to
concede the point: “That sounds highly probable to me.”
An attempt to equalize both population and voters would have
especially bad consequences for minority representation. In a
forthcomingpaper<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm%3Fabstract_id=2631666>Vanderbilt
law and mathematics professor Paul Edelman shows that it is
mathematically possible to draw districts that equalize both voters
and population — but only at a big cost. He concludes that “dual
districting may well be antithetical to achieving majority-minority
districts,” a cornerstone of the Voting Rights Act.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78195&title=An%20Answer%20to%20Justice%20Kennedy%26%238217%3Bs%20Question%20in%20Evenwel%20About%20Relevant%20Studies%20of%20One%20Person%2C%20One%20Vote&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Get a Free Look at the Introduction to Plutocrats United
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78193>
Posted onDecember 9, 2015 1:28 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78193>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Amazon has just put theKindle version
<http://www.amazon.com/Plutocrats-United-Campaign-Distortion-Elections-ebook/dp/B0191TUGH2/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1449696406&sr=1-1>of
my new book,Plutocrats United: Campaign Money, the Supreme Court, and
the Distortion of American Elections
<http://www.amazon.com/Plutocrats-United-Campaign-Distortion-Elections/dp/0300212453/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1449696406&sr=1-1>,
on sale for preorder.
If you click on the Kindle version of the book, and click “Look Inside,”
you can read part of the Introduction to the book.
The book itself is out January 12.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78193&title=Get%20a%20Free%20Look%20at%20the%20Introduction%20to%20Plutocrats%20United&description=>
Posted incampaign finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Plutocrats United
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“The public doesn’t support restrictive voter ID laws, but many new
ones will be in force in 2016” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78191>
Posted onDecember 9, 2015 1:26 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78191>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Herman Schwartz
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/12/08/the-public-doesnt-support-voter-id-laws-but-many-new-ones-will-be-in-force-in-2016/>for
Reuters Opinion:
Defenders of photo ID laws regularly cite public opinion polls that
show widespread support for their arguments. Yet these polls reveal
no such support, and they prove nothing about this new restrictive
legislation because the polls’ questions cover a far broader range
of IDs than the actual laws accept as proof of identity. Many of the
new laws do not accept a college student ID, for example, or an
out-of-state driver’s license; but the polls drawing favorable
responses encompass such IDs. As always, the devil is in the details.
Important point.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78191&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20public%20doesn%E2%80%99t%20support%20restrictive%20voter%20ID%20laws%2C%20but%20many%20new%20ones%20will%20be%20in%20force%20in%202016%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
“Jeb Bush’s super PAC burning through money with little to show for
it” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78189>
Posted onDecember 9, 2015 11:01 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78189>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jeb-bushs-super-pac-burning-through-money-with-little-to-show-for-it/2015/12/09/0baaa5fe-9df8-11e5-8728-1af6af208198_story.html>:
The super PAC supporting Jeb Bush is racing through its massive war
chest much faster than money is coming in, spending close to
$50 million in a record blitz that has so far failed to lift the
former Florida governor’s sputtering presidential candidacy.
The group, Right to Rise, has already gone through nearly half of
the $103 million it brought in during the first half of the year,
records show. It raised only about $13 million in the five months
that followed, according to a person familiar with the figure.
That leaves the super PAC with around $67 million heading into the
first 2016 nominating contests. The sum still surpasses the
resources of rival groups, but it is not clear whether Right to
Rise’s financial might — viewed earlier this year as Bush’s distinct
advantage — will be enough to help separate him from the pack.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78189&title=%26%238220%3BJeb%20Bush%E2%80%99s%20super%20PAC%20burning%20through%20money%20with%20little%20to%20show%20for%20it%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Freedom Caucus Forgets the Freedom Part”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78187>
Posted onDecember 9, 2015 11:00 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78187>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Paul Jossey
writes<http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/09/freedom-caucus-forgets-the-freedom-part/>for
The Daily Caller.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78187&title=%26%238220%3BFreedom%20Caucus%20Forgets%20the%20Freedom%20Part%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>
“Do Elected Officials Represent Everyone or Just Those Who Can
Vote?” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78185>
Posted onDecember 9, 2015 10:09 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78185>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Brentin Mock writes for CityLab.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78185&title=%26%238220%3BDo%20Elected%20Officials%20Represent%20Everyone%20or%20Just%20Those%20Who%20Can%20Vote%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“The Supreme Court may change ‘one person, one vote.’ This would
hurt Latinos and Democrats.” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78183>
Posted onDecember 9, 2015 9:45 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78183>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Monkey Cage
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/12/09/the-supreme-court-may-change-one-person-one-vote-this-would-hurt-latinos-and-democrats/>:
On Tuesday, the Supreme Courtheard oral arguments
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/us/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-arguments-on-one-person-one-vote.html>in
the case/Evenwel v. Abbott
<https://ballotpedia.org/Evenwel_v._Abbott>/. The main issue in the
case is who must be counted when district lines are drawn.
The “one person, one vote” principlein operation since the 1960s
<http://www.amazon.com/End-Inequality-Transformation-American-Democracy/dp/039393103X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1449625839&sr=8-1&keywords=ansolabehere+snyder>has
typically been interpreted to mean all persons — including people
who cannot vote, such as children and non-citizens. The suit brought
by Evenwel against the state of Texas seeks to change the definition
to eligible voters.
The consequences of such a move are alreadybeing debated
<http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/262332-evenwel-threatens-one-person-one-vote>.
Now,some new evidence
<http://klarnerpolitics.com/evenwel-v-abbott/>from political
scientist Carl Klarner suggests what the consequences would be:*less
voting power for Latinos and Democrats*.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78183&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20Supreme%20Court%20may%20change%20%E2%80%98one%20person%2C%20one%20vote.%E2%80%99%20This%20would%20hurt%20Latinos%20and%20Democrats.%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
What to Make of Justice Scalia’s Silence at Evenwel Oral Argument?
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78180>
Posted onDecember 9, 2015 9:36 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78180>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Justice Scalia is not shy about expressing his opinion. He had plenty to
say in theoral argument
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-232_c0ne.pdf>yesterday
in the Harris redistricting case.He spoke
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/12/09/supreme-court-university-affirmative-action-hearing-live-blog/>at
today’s Fisher affirmative action argument as well. But at yesterday’s
Evenwel oral argument (the one person, one vote case), he wassilent
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-940_4g15.pdf>.
Now silence from a Justice doesn’t necessarily mean anything. Consider
Justice Thomas, who never talks, but who has been the person most active
on the Court in getting the Court to reconsider this one person, one
vote issue (Thomas alone dissented from a cert denial in a 2001 case
raising the same issue).
But given that it is Justice Scalia, it does suggest he is not heavily
invested in this case, and therefore not a likely vote to upset the
apple cart. If he thought that plaintiffs had a good theory, I would
have expected him to go after Texas or the U.S. at arguments. Scalia
might believe (1) there’s not good originalist argument here; (2)
plaintiffs’ arguments go against principles of federalism; (3) Burns and
other cases are precedent that should be followed here; or (4) all or
none of the above.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78180&title=What%20to%20Make%20of%20Justice%20Scalia%26%238217%3Bs%20Silence%20at%20Evenwel%20Oral%20Argument%3F&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Two dozen dark money groups have busted 50 percent cap on politics
at least once” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78178>
Posted onDecember 9, 2015 9:27 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78178>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Open Secrets
<http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/12/two-dozen-dark-money-groups-have-busted-50-percent-cap-on-politics-at-least-once/>:
Twenty-four politically active nonprofits — including some of the
biggest names in dark money — have devoted more than half their
total spending to influencing elections in at least one year between
2008 and 2013, a Center for Responsive Politics analysis shows. At
least three have done so more than once.
Anew feature on OpenSecrets.org
<http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/nonprof_pcts.php>displays the
percentage rankings. Because nonprofits file their annual tax
returns, called Form 990s, long after the spending takes place, the
data does not yet fully account for spending that took place in the
2014 midterms.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78178&title=%26%238220%3BTwo%20dozen%20dark%20money%20groups%20have%20busted%2050%20percent%20cap%20on%20politics%20at%20least%20once%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,tax law
and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
“Florida’s Ex-Felons Struggle to Regain Their Voting Rights”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78175>
Posted onDecember 9, 2015 9:23 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78175>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Spencer Woodman deep
dive<https://theintercept.com/2015/12/09/floridas-ex-felons-struggle-to-regain-their-voting-rights/>at
The Intercept.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78175&title=%26%238220%3BFlorida%26%238217%3Bs%20Ex-Felons%20Struggle%20to%20Regain%20Their%20Voting%20Rights%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted infelon voting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=66>,Voting Rights
Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“A Past and Future of Judicial Elections: The Case of Montana”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78173>
Posted onDecember 9, 2015 8:42 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78173>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Anthony Johnstone has postedthis draft
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2660514>on SSRN
(/Appellate Practice and Process/). Here is the abstract:
Judicial elections are approaching their second century in the
United States, and they are not going anywhere soon. Now, recent
deregulation of campaigns and elections through successful
constitutional challenges also reaches judicial campaigns and
elections. Many of the legal and ethical constraints on judicial
campaign speech and finance, once a realm of electoral
exceptionalism respecting the distinct office of a judge, fell to
these challenges alongside their political campaign analogues. The
remaining exceptions, which protect a core of judicial impartiality
from due process violations, are inconsequential to most modern
judicial campaigns. Judicial campaigns quickly learned the political
tactics of the Citizens United era, prompting a flood of attack ads
financed by independent expenditures, some of which are not fully
disclosed. Meanwhile, state courts in general, and state supreme
courts in particular, remain important players in increasingly
polarized debates in state law and politics. Case by case, issue by
issue, term by term, the polarization of the political branches runs
to the courts. This is the new normal in judicial elections.
Montana’s election for one of two contested seats on the state
supreme court in 2014 exemplifies this new normal. In 2011, the
Montana Supreme Court took a lonely and short-lived stand against
this state of affairs by attempting to distinguish Montana’s
campaigns, including judicial campaigns, from the Supreme Court’s
decision in Citizens United. Yet the state’s concerns about
financial and outside influence on judicial campaigns date back to
before statehood, and continue to inflect judicial politics today.
This article searches for lessons from Montana’s experience for the
future of American judicial elections. Part II considers the origin
of judicial elections and history of reforms in Montana, which is
marked both by substantial worries about outside political
intervention in state courts and by several innovative responses to
it. Part III reviews the practice established by Montana’s reformed
model of judicial selection over the past four decades. Part IV
examines the Montana Supreme Court’s engagement with Citizens
United, followed by a close analysis of an election held in its
aftermath: the hard- fought 2014 campaign between incumbent Justice
Mike Wheat and challenger Lawrence VanDyke. Part V suggests some
preliminary conclusions about the meaning of Citizens United and
other recent legal developments for judicial elections in the
states, and how states might respond.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78173&title=%26%238220%3BA%20Past%20and%20Future%20of%20Judicial%20Elections%3A%20The%20Case%20of%20Montana%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,judicial
elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>
--
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
hhttp://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/20151210/a5202a23/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/20151210/a5202a23/attachment.png>
View list directory