[EL] ELB News and Commentary 12/16/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Wed Dec 16 08:01:56 PST 2015
BIG: Campaign Finance Disclosure Efforts Dealt Severe Blow in
Omnibus <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78383>
Posted onDecember 16, 2015 7:58 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78383>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
While campaign finance reformers were busy fighting off an attempt by
Sen. McConnell to include a rider in the omnibus which would allow for
unlimited coordinated party spending with candidates, three other very
bad campaign finance provisions slipped into the must-pass congressional
omnibus as riders. All three relate to disclosure.
ViaJason Abe
<https://twitter.com/jasonaabel/status/677121803370778624>l, one
provision stops the IRS from engaging in rulemaking on 501c4 activity,
which would rein in shadow Super PACs who have been engaging in heavy
federal election activity without publicly disclosing their donors. A
second provision bars the SEC from adopting campaign disclosure rules
for certain corporations (something that campaign finance activists have
been agitating for for over a year). A third provision
<https://twitter.com/jasonaabel/status/677126791643967489>would prevent
a White House executive order (which the White House so far has shown no
indication of enacting) requiring certain campaign finance disclosures
from government contractors.
Together, assuming these remain in the omnibus signed by the President,
these provisions will ensure that the American public has much less
information than it needs to make informed and responsible choices about
who is funding the groups that are spending hundreds of millions of
dollars to influence our federal elections.
It mightseem like a victory for reformers
<https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/677131488274612224>that the
coordinated party provision is not in there. But, to begin with, that
provision fell because it had opposition not only from reformers but
also from the Freedom Caucus, which feared that opening party money
would allow the Republican Establishment to use money against tea party
conservatives in primaries. The Freedom Caucus has no problem with lack
of disclosure (so-called “dark money” in elections).
Second, while McConnell didn’t get all he wanted on campaign finance,
the two riders which made it in shows how the battle has shifted. Now
reformers can’t even get the disclosure that everyone used to agree was
crucial to fair elections.
Third, I’m sure there were lots of things unrelated to campaign finance
that Democrats had to fight about in the omnibus. Disclosure may seem
relatively unimportant given those battles. We’ll see. But Democrats
have not been the leaders on the issue of campaign finance reform that
Democratic leaders would like the base to think it is. And that failure
of leadership starts at the top, with President Obama. As I argue
inPlutocrats United
<http://www.amazon.com/Plutocrats-United-Campaign-Distortion-Elections/dp/0300212453/>,
he is the worst President we’ve had on campaign finance since Nixon.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78383&title=BIG%3A%20Campaign%20Finance%20Disclosure%20Efforts%20Dealt%20Severe%20Blow%20in%20Omnibus&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,political
parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Bush v. Gore: 15 Years Later (ACS Video)
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78380>
Posted onDecember 16, 2015 7:43 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78380>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Yesterday I participatedin a panel
<https://events.acslaw.org/rsvp?id=a0YG0000009WL1NMAW>sponsored by ACS
regarding the 15th anniversary of Bush v. Gore, with Judith Browne
Davis, Curt Levey, and Pam Karlan. Joan Biskupic moderated. It was a
great substantive panel with a standing room only crowd. ACS has now
posted the video onYouTube
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1sJmYqlNoY>, and the event will
eventually turn up on C-SPAN as well. You can watch below:
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78380&title=Bush%20v.%20Gore%3A%2015%20Years%20Later%20%28ACS%20Video%29&description=>
Posted inBush v. Gore reflections
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=5>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Robert Menendez Case Eligible for Appeal”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78378>
Posted onDecember 16, 2015 7:33 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78378>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/16/nyregion/robert-menendez-case-eligible-for-appeal.html?ref=politics&_r=0>:
SenatorRobert Menendez
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/robert_menendez/index.html?inline=nyt-per>of
New Jersey may appeal his indictment on corruption charges, based
partly on his argument that some of the charges stem from routine
legislative work protected by the Constitution.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in
Philadelphia, ruled on Friday that Mr. Menendez, a Democrat, may
also appeal over his defense’s argument regarding separation of
powers. His lawyers argued it would be up to the Senate, not the
courts, to punish any violations over disclosure rules stemming from
the allegation that Mr. Menendez did not include flights on a
co-defendant’s plane on a Senate financial disclosure report.
Mr. Menendez is charged with accepting campaign donations and gifts
in exchange for political influence. He has pleaded not guilty and
has said his actions were not specifically to benefit a
co-defendant, Dr. Salomon Melgen. Dr. Melgen, a Florida
ophthalmologist, has also pleaded not guilty.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78378&title=%26%238220%3BRobert%20Menendez%20Case%20Eligible%20for%20Appeal%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inbribery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>,legislation and
legislatures <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>,Speech or Debate
Clause <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=36>
“Stephen Carter: Time doesn’t heal wounds from Bush v. Gore”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78376>
Posted onDecember 16, 2015 7:32 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78376>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Oped.
<http://www.mcall.com/opinion/mc-bush-gore-recount-1216-20151215-story.html>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78376&title=%26%238220%3BStephen%20Carter%3A%20Time%20doesn%26%238217%3Bt%20heal%20wounds%20from%20Bush%20v.%20Gore%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inBush v. Gore reflections
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=5>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Donald Trump says there’s ‘no chance’ he’ll make a third-party bid”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78374>
Posted onDecember 16, 2015 7:20 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78374>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Yahoo News reports.
<https://www.yahoo.com/politics/donald-trump-says-theres-no-chance-hell-make-a-052856398.html>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78374&title=%26%238220%3BDonald%20Trump%20says%20there%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%98no%20chance%E2%80%99%20he%E2%80%99ll%20make%20a%20third-party%20bid%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“The New Federal Analogy: Evenwel v. Abbott and the History of
Congressional Apportionment” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78372>
Posted onDecember 16, 2015 7:13 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78372>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Thomas Berry has postedthis draft
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2701538>on SSRN
(forthcoming, /NYU Journal of Law and Liberty/). Here is the abstract:
Since the 1964 case of Reynolds v. Sims, states have been
constitutionally required under the Equal Protection Clause to draw
their legislative districts with equal populations. In the upcoming
case of Evenwel v. Abbott, the Supreme Court will decide whether the
“population” that must be equalized is total population, voter
population, or whichever a state chooses. So far, lower courts have
unanimously rejected constitutional challenges to apportionment by
total population. Frequently, these courts and other scholars have
argued that it would be implausible for the Fourteenth Amendment,
which allocates representatives in the U.S. House to the states
based on their total populations, to forbid the same practice within
a state. I call this argument the “federal analogy.”
This Article represents the first full-length historical examination
challenging the conventional wisdom that the federal analogy is a
strong argument against a ban on total population-based districting
at the state level. Through examination of the debates at the
Constitutional Convention and the enactment of the Fourteenth
Amendment, this Article demonstrates that the federal rule was
created to solve a uniquely federal problem: that states have
control over their own standard of suffrage. Thus, under a
voter-based federal rule of apportionment, states would have been
able to game the system: a state would need only to expand suffrage
— say, by lowering its voting age — to obtain additional
representation. This is why the total population rule for the U.S.
House was created (and, in part, why the electoral college system
rather than nationwide popular election of the president was
created), to allocate political power to the states in a reasonably
fair manner that neither incentivizes nor disincentivizes expanding
suffrage.
Eighty years later, debates at the passage of the Fourteenth
Amendment show that a voter-based standard was opposed for this same
practical concern. In addition, the voter-based system was opposed
out of concern for the adequate virtual representation of nonvoting
women, and political opposition from eastern states to the
possibility of losing relative political power to the heavily-male
western states. Further, the Amendment’s now nearly-forgotten
Penalty Clause sheds crucial light on the democratic principles
behind the amendment. This clause removed disenfranchised former
slaves from their states’ congressional apportionment totals,
because they were not virtually represented and they were denied the
vote indefinitely. Aliens, on the other hand, were kept within
apportionment because nearly all at that time became voters within
five years of U.S. residency. This represents the greatest change in
circumstances between 1866 and today. Now, with aliens occupying a
situation of indefinite waits for the vote and no obvious “guardian
voter” to virtually represent their interests, the lesson of the
Fourteenth Amendment’s Penalty Clause counsels for removing them
from apportionment and not allowing others to claim to represent
them, just as disenfranchised former slaves were removed.
Berry and Ilya Shapiro have also postedElena Kagan Selectively Quotes
Amendment Framers on Redistricting
<http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/11/elena-kagan-selectively-quotes-amendment-framers-on-redistricting/>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78372&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20New%20Federal%20Analogy%3A%20Evenwel%20v.%20Abbott%20and%20the%20History%20of%20Congressional%20Apportionment%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“2 DAs back away from bid to revive probe into Walker campaign”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78370>
Posted onDecember 16, 2015 7:08 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78370>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/2-das-back-away-from-bid-to-revive-probe-into-walker-campaign-b99634740z1-362480281.html>:
Two of the five district attorneys involved in an investigation of
Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign and conservative groups are walking
away from an attempt to revive the probe that the state Supreme
Court terminated this summer.
In a letter and court filing last week, Dodge County District
Attorney Kurt Klomberg wrote he would not seek to intervene in
litigation over the probe as a way to get the matter before the U.S.
Supreme Court. Columbia County District Attorney Jane Kohlwey sent a
nearly identical letter on Monday.
Special prosecutor Francis Schmitz has said he wants the nation’s
high court to get involved.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78370&title=%26%238220%3B2%20DAs%20back%20away%20from%20bid%20to%20revive%20probe%20into%20Walker%20campaign%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,chicanery
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
“Analysis: Super PACs dominate airwaves in presidential contest”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78368>
Posted onDecember 16, 2015 7:04 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78368>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Fredreka Schouten
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2015/12/15/analysis-super-pacs-dominate-airwaves-presidential-contest/77368632/>for
USA Today.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78368&title=%26%238220%3BAnalysis%3A%20Super%20PACs%20dominate%20airwaves%20in%20presidential%20contest%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
Quote of the Day: Native Hawaiian Election Edition
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78365>
Posted onDecember 16, 2015 6:58 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78365>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
“”I don’t know how anybody is supposed to take any of this seriously at
this point….I mean, it has the integrity of a Costco membership.”
—Native Hawaiian community advocate Trisha Keahaulani
Watson-Sproat,quoted by AP
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NATIVE_HAWAIIAN_ELECTION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>,
who has been a critic of the Native Hawaiian election just called off.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78365&title=Quote%20of%20the%20Day%3A%20Native%20Hawaiian%20Election%20Edition&description=>
Posted invoting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
Ned Foley: The History of Disputed Elections Shows that When
Institutions are Weak, Individual Character Really Matters
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78241>
Posted onDecember 15, 2015 8:00 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78241>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The following is the third of five guest posts byNed Foley
<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/faculty/professor/edward-b-foley/>of Ohio
State, about his new bookBallot Battles: The History of Disputed
Elections in the United States
<https://global.oup.com/academic/product/ballot-battles-9780190235277?cc=us&lang=en&>:
ballotbattles
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/ballotbattles.jpeg>‘
*Theme Three:*Throughout American history, there has been an important
interplay between institutions and individuals in terms of the capacity
to resolve vote-counting disputes in accordance with a basic standard of
fairness and integrity. Insofar as the institutions for adjudicating
these disputes have been weaker than desirable (in large part because of
the oversight at the Founding, as described in the first post), the
political system inevitably places greater reliance on the ethical
judgments of individual politicians who play critical roles in the
handling of these disputes. Conversely, to the extent that
institutional improvements occur that increase the capacity for
impartial adjudication of these disputes, there is correspondingly less
dependence upon the particular character and virtue of individual
politicians.
This dynamic has been at work since the beginning. In 1806, when the
Massachusetts legislature had the authority to count ballots in the
state’s gubernatorial election, the dominant party in the
legislature—including Joseph Story, the future Supreme Court justice who
was a member of the state’s house of representatives at the
time—concocted a brazen plan to manipulate the count in order to defeat
the electorate’s will and put their party’s candidate in power. But
overnight leaders of the plot, including Story (at least to some
extent), thought better of their nefarious plan and decided to back down.
In other instances, partisans in power had no such second thoughts and
went ahead to pilfer an election through vote-counting distortions. One
reason why the so-called “Bloody Eighth”—the term given to the dispute
over the election for Indiana’s eighth congressional district in
1984—was so divisive, and produced such long-lasting enmity in Congress,
is the perception on the part of Republicans that Democrats had abused
power in just this way. If an impartial institution had existed to
adjudicate the dispute, Democrats never would have been in a position to
change the rules for counting ballots just as their candidate pulled
ahead. But the temptation apparently was irresistible at that moment of
political competition, leading to the Republican charge that Democrats
breached a basic standard of fair play.
The most precarious moment when institutional inadequacy caused the
political system to hang on individual character occurred at the end of
the Hayes-Tilden dispute. On March 1, 1877, just three days before the
scheduled inauguration of the new president on March 4, the entire
process of counting Electoral College votes from the states threatened
to derail because of a surprise development over Vermont. You can
read/Ballot Battles/for full details of the drama (and they were indeed
dramatic), but the key point is that a logjam developed that neither the
Constitution nor the applicable statute specified how to handle.
Hardliners within the Democratic party wanted to freeze the whole
process unless and until they got their way on how to handle Vermont.
They even threatened to assert the power of the House of Representatives
under the Twelfth Amendment to elect the president directly. But
Samuel Randall, the Speaker of the House and himself a Democrat—Tilden’s
man in the House, who had been elected Speaker to push Tilden’s claim to
the presidency—would not risk letting the nation go over this
constitutional cliff. He was determined to see the count concluded
before March 4, even if it meant Tilden’s defeat. In order to prevail,
he had to call out the Sergeant-at-Arms against members of his own party
and to refuse to let the House take a critical vote on whether the
hardliners should have their way on Vermont.
Randall saw his conduct at that critical juncture on March 1 as a matter
of “conscience,” and many nineteenth century observers viewed him has
the key hero of the whole Hayes-Tilden saga. Too bad there is no a
schoolchild in America who learns of what he did that fateful day. We
are fortunate that we can only speculate on what might have happened if
he had not held his ground.
The prospect of two separate inauguration ceremonies—one based on a
House declaration that it had elected Tilden under the Twelfth
Amendment, the other based on the President of the Senate (a Republican)
purporting to declare Hayes the winner of enough Electoral College
votes—is unnerving, even at this historical distance. It is certainly
unsettling to think that the country could sometime again face the
situation where a disputed presidential election depended upon the
personal character of the Speaker of the House. Would it not be better
to adopt an institutional reform that put the outcome of the
presidential election in the hands of a more impartial body?
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78241&title=Ned%20Foley%3A%20The%20History%20of%20Disputed%20Elections%20Shows%20that%20When%20Institutions%20are%20Weak%2C%20Individual%20Character%20Really%20Matters&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“The ‘Oprah Theory Of Elections’ – Everyone Wins! Hawaiians-Only
Election ‘Terminated,’ All Candidates Invited To Participate”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78363>
Posted onDecember 15, 2015 3:51 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78363>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Robert Thomas blogs.
<http://www.inversecondemnation.com/inversecondemnation/2015/12/the-oprah-theory-of-elections-everyone-wins-hawaiians-only-election-terminated-all-candidates-invite.html> [corrected
link]
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78363&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20%26%238216%3BOprah%20Theory%20Of%20Elections%26%238217%3B%20%26%238211%3B%20Everyone%20Wins%21%20Hawaiians-Only%20Election%20%26%238216%3BTerminated%2C%26%238217%3B%20All%20Candidates%20Invited%20To%20Participate%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,voting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
“With 40th Anniversary of Buckley v. Valeo, Demos Reports Examine
Money in Politics at the SCOTUS” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78360>
Posted onDecember 15, 2015 2:57 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78360>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Demos
<http://www.demos.org/press-release/40th-anniversary-buckley-v-valeo-demos-reports-examine-money-politics-scotus>:
Next year won’t just mark the most expensive and big money-dominated
election in U.S. history–it is also the 40th anniversary of the
Supreme Court case that set the basic structure of campaign finance
law. InBuckley at 40
<http://www.demos.org/publication/buckley-v-valeo-40>, Demos Counsel
and Senior Advisor *Adam Lioz*examines how 1976’s Buckley v. Valeo
launched a vicious cycle of political, economic, and racial
inequality that endures today. In advance of the January 30, 2016
anniversary of the decision, Lioz lays out the basics of the case,
examines Buckley’s legacy after four decades, and explains why it is
actually more important than Citizens United–all in an accessible
Q&A format.
“Overturning Citizens United is a great first step, but it would
return us to the glory days of 2009, when the donor class still set
the agenda in Washington,” said Lioz. “Buckley is the root cause of
our money in politics problems–the reason billionaires can spend
without limit and drown out the rest of our voices.”
In a companion piece also released today, Lioz makes the case for
why transforming the Supreme Court’s approach to money in politics
is critical to achieve a fair democracy, revive basic economic
opportunity, and move forward our nation’s struggle for racial
equity. Breaking the Vicious Cycle
<http://www.demos.org/publication/breaking-vicious-cycle-rescuing-our-democracy-and-our-economy-transforming-supreme-court>details
the Supreme Court’s role in gutting basic protections against
wealthy interests translating economic might into political power.
Lioz argues that democracy must write the rules for capitalism,
not the other way around; and points to a path forward hinged on new
constitutional arguments and impending turnover at the High
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78360&title=%26%238220%3BWith%2040th%20Anniversary%20of%20Buckley%20v.%20Valeo%2C%20Demos%20Reports%20Examine%20Money%20in%20Politics%20at%20the%20SCOTUS%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Coalition of Civic Organizations Sue North Carolina for Failing to
Comply with Federal Voting Rights Obligations”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78357>
Posted onDecember 15, 2015 1:28 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78357>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Project Vote release.
<http://www.projectvote.org/press-releases/coalition-of-civic-organizations-sue-north-carolina-for-failing-to-comply-with-federal-voting-rights-obligations/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78357&title=%26%238220%3BCoalition%20of%20Civic%20Organizations%20Sue%20North%20Carolina%20for%20Failing%20to%20Comply%20with%20Federal%20Voting%20Rights%20Obligations%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inNVRA (motor voter) <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>,The
Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
Hawaii Election Subject to #SCOTUS Stay Cancelled
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78355>
Posted onDecember 15, 2015 1:24 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78355>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Not only that
<http://www.staradvertiser.com/breaking-news/nai-aupuni-cancels-native-hawaiian-election/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter>:
everyone who ran gets to be a delegate. (It’s the Oprah rule: You get
elected! You get elected! Every-body-gets-elected!)
I assume this moots the Ninth Circuit case and ends the chances for
SCOTUS review.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78355&title=Hawaii%20Election%20Subject%20to%20%23SCOTUS%20Stay%20Cancelled&description=>
Posted invoting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
“Realizing the Right to Vote: The Story of Thornburg v. Gingles”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78353>
Posted onDecember 15, 2015 6:16 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78353>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Dan Tokaji has postedthis draft
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2697007>on SSRN
(forthcoming, /Election Law Stories/). Here is the abstract;
Justice William Brennan’s opinion in Thornburg v. Gingles is among
the most consequential and enduring in the election law canon.
Gingles established a three-part test that plaintiffs must satisfy
to prevail on a racial vote dilution claim under Section 2 of the
Voting Rights Act. The Gingles doctrine led to the transformation of
representation at every level of government, compelling the creation
of districts from which racial minorities could elect their
preferred candidates. It remains a cornerstone of our voting rights
law and a centerpiece of Justice Brennan’s legacy.
This chapter tells the story of Gingles. It begins by travelling
back over two centuries of North Carolina history, including the
patently unconstitutional disfranchisement of African Americans
engineered by Charles Brantley Aycock, elected the state’s governor
in 1900. After reviewing the history of the Voting Rights Act of
1965 and its 1982 amendments, the chapter delves into the backstory
of the Gingles litigation, most notably the previously untold
drafting history of Justice Brennan’s opinion. The chapter concludes
with a discussion of the consequences of Gingles and disagreements
over the right to vote that still rage today, in North Carolina and
across the country.
Several of the players in the Gingles drama would become renowned
for their subsequent accomplishments as lawyers, judges, and
scholars. But the most surprising aspect of Gingles’s history is how
little discussion there was of the law as it was being litigated. In
the district court, through oral argument in Supreme Court, and even
up to the first draft of the opinion, the focus was almost entirely
on the facts. The now-canonical Gingles preconditions did not emerge
until the second draft of the opinion. This doctrine would not have
become law, but for the unrelenting efforts of Justice Brennan to
keep a majority for the core of his opinion, which included
switching his vote on one of the challenged districts to hold on to
the all-important fifth vote on the Court. The story of Gingles is
thus a revealing example of how law gets made and how that law can
change the world.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78353&title=%26%238220%3BRealizing%20the%20Right%20to%20Vote%3A%20The%20Story%20of%20Thornburg%20v.%20Gingles%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“McConnell Can Make Super PACs Obsolete”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78351>
Posted onDecember 15, 2015 6:14 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78351>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
David Bossie
<http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428446/real-campaign-finance-reform>for
the National Review.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78351&title=%26%238220%3BMcConnell%20Can%20Make%20Super%20PACs%20Obsolete%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>
“Inside the 2016 black market for donor emails”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78349>
Posted onDecember 15, 2015 6:11 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78349>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Shane Goldmacher
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/inside-the-2016-black-market-for-donor-emails-216761>for
Politico:
cott Walker has begun selling access to his email list to pay off
his leftover presidential debt, renting out the email addresses of
hundreds of thousands of supporters to former rivals, including
Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Ted Cruz and Ben Carson. The solicitations
arrive as if Walker’s donors magically landed on the lists of his
old foes, as they plead for cash for themselves, linking to their
own campaign sites.
But there’s a catch.
While it never says so in the emails from his old foes, or anywhere,
the money that donors give isn’t necessarily all going to whichever
smiling candidate is pictured on the site and writing the email.
That is because Walker’s committee has struck secret deals with at
least some of his old competitors to split the proceeds —
unbeknownst to those doing the giving.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78349&title=%26%238220%3BInside%20the%202016%20black%20market%20for%20donor%20emails%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
--
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/20151216/885b73f4/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/20151216/885b73f4/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ballotbattles-200x300.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 18698 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151216/885b73f4/attachment.jpeg>
View list directory