[EL] ELB News and Commentary 12/18/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Thu Dec 17 21:06:40 PST 2015
“DNC: Sanders campaign improperly accessed Clinton voter data”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78453>
Posted onDecember 17, 2015 9:02 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78453>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo reports.
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-sanders-campaign-improperly-accessed-clinton-voter-data/2015/12/17/a2e2e14e-a522-11e5-b53d-972e2751f433_story.html?tid=sm_tw>
Officials with the Democratic National Committee have accused the
presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders of improperly accessing
confidential voter information gathered by the rival campaign of
Hillary Clinton, according to several party officials.
Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager, acknowledged that a
low-level staffer had viewed the information but blamed a software
vendor hired by the DNC for a glitch that allowed them access.
Weaver said one Sanders staffer was fired over the incident.
The discovery sparked alarm at the DNC, which promptly shut off the
Sanders campaign’s access to the strategically crucial list of
likely Democratic voters.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78453&title=%26%238220%3BDNC%3A%20Sanders%20campaign%20improperly%20accessed%20Clinton%20voter%20data%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Harry Reid Directly Solicited Contribution From Private Equity
Giant Before Controversial Rider” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78451>
Posted onDecember 17, 2015 8:51 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78451>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
HuffPost
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/harry-reid-citizens-united_56730cfee4b0648fe3029f9b?yjh5mi>:
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that legalizing
unlimited election giving to groups such as super PACs would have no
corrupting effect on democracy because PACs are independent from the
candidates. Luckily for Kennedy, he was not among those present at a
2013 meeting involving Harry Reid and private equity CEO David
Bonderman.
As Senate majority leader, Reid directly solicited a contribution
from Bonderman, sources present at the May 1, 2013, meeting at the
Milken Institute said. The private equity giant then gave more than
$1 million to a super PAC connected to Reid, and Reid later inserted
two pieces of language into the 2015 end-of-year omnibus budget bill
that would be a boon to Bonderman.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78451&title=%26%238220%3BHarry%20Reid%20Directly%20Solicited%20Contribution%20From%20Private%20Equity%20Giant%20Before%20Controversial%20Rider%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,conflict
of interest laws <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>
“New FEC chairman aims to calm agency at war with itself”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78449>
Posted onDecember 17, 2015 8:48 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78449>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Dave Levinthal for CPI
<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/12/17/19008/new-fec-chairman-aims-calm-agency-war-itself>:
The Federal Election Commission, a government agency tasked with
policing what’s expected to be the nation’s most expensive election
ever, will drag itself into the new year perhaps more internally
injured than at any point in its 40-year history.
It will do so under the leadership of Matthew Petersen, a Republican
who his five commission colleagues, in a perfunctory vote,today
appointed
<https://twitter.com/davelevinthal/status/677569975218020352>chairman for
2016. The job switches annually between Republicans and Democrats.
But Petersen, a soft-spoken and professorial attorney by trade, says
his tenure at the FEC’s helm will prove decidedly different than
that of Democrat Ann Ravel, the current chairwoman who’s used her
office’s meager power — a bully pulpit, mainly — to its maximum.
“I’ve learned to take a more low-profile approach,” he told
theCenter for Public Integrity <http://www.publicintegrity.org/>in
an interview earlier this month. “I don’t feel any need to have my
face out there any more than it is.”
Low profile is something Ravel is not.
Read the whole thing.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78449&title=%26%238220%3BNew%20FEC%20chairman%20aims%20to%20calm%20agency%20at%20war%20with%20itself%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,federal
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>
Ned Foley: The Great Dissenter in Plessy Anticipated the Role for
Federal Courts Embraced in Bush v. Gore—But Will the Court Repeat
that Role Next Time and, If Not, What Then?
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78245>
Posted onDecember 17, 2015 8:00 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78245>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The following is the fifth 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 Five:*In the 1900s, even as state courts increasingly became the
forum for resolving a major vote-counting dispute (as described in the
previous post), there still was no role for the federal judiciary in
these cases. That was because of/Taylor v. Beckham/, a U.S. Supreme
Court decision in 1900 growing out of Kentucky’s 1899 gubernatorial
election—the one involving the assassination of a candidate because of
the dispute over the counting of ballots (as also mentioned in the
previous post). /Taylor/ruled that the federal judiciary was powerless
to protect the integrity of a state’s electoral process, even in a case
of demonstrated outright ballot-box stuffing.
The hegemony of/Taylor v. Beckham/is seen most clearly a half-century
later, in the dispute over Lyndon Johnson’s 87-vote victory in the 1948
election that propelled him to the Senate. Two hundred fake votes were
added to Ballot Box 13 on Johnson’s behalf, and his opponent went to
federal court in an effort to undo the outright fraud. (Texas was a
state where, even in the middle of the twentieth century, one could not
look to the state’s judiciary for vote-counting fairness, as Nixon knew
in 1960—a point raised in the second of these posts.) But Johnson got
the U.S. Supreme Court to squelch the federal-court challenge to his
fraud-infested victory. It was a no-brainer case for the Court because
of/Taylor v. Beckham/and that precedent’s progeny in the intervening
decades.
A no-brainer based on precedent, but not necessarily sound in principle.
/Taylor v. Beckham/itself had not been unanimous. It had provoked
outrage from the Great Dissenter, Justice John Marshall Harlan, most
famous of course for his dissent in the “separate but equal”
case,/Plessy v. Ferguson/. Although not nearly as well known, Harlan’s
dissent in/Taylor v. Beckham/matches in eloquence his/Plessy/opinion.
“The overturning of the public will, as expressed at the ballot box,”
Harlan wrote, “is a crime against free government.” Then, specifically
invoking the Fourteenth Amendment as a basis for federal court
jurisdiction to protect the “rights” of the “person elected, as well as
the people who elected him,” Harlan added: “I cannot believe that the
[federal] judiciary is helpless in the presence of such a crime.”
Harlan’s position did not prevail in 1900. But it did a full century
later, in 2000. /Bush v. Gore/(fifteen years old this week), by invoking
the Fourteenth Amendment as the basis for stopping what it saw as
ballot-counting improprieties in Florida, adopted essentially the same
view of federal judicial power in this kind of case that Justice Harlan
had advocated.
Whatever one thinks of the specific exercise of that power in/Bush v.
Gore/itself, over time and in the aggregate the new role for the federal
judiciary in these cases is likely to be a significant institutional
improvements. Federal courts are by no means perfectly nonpartisan. But
on balance they are likely to be less partisan than state courts. Thus,
just as the twentieth century saw greater impartiality in these cases
with the increased use of state courts compared to state legislatures,
so too will the twenty-first century likely see even greater
impartiality with increasing reliance on federal courts compared to
state courts. As the decades of this still-young century unfold, a
growing body of Fourteenth Amendment precedent will constrain
vote-counting abuses in all manner of elections, be they gubernatorial,
senatorial, judicial, mayoral, or otherwise. No state, including Texas,
will be able to get away with the kind of affront to democracy that
occurred with the ballot-box stuffing of 1948.
But what of the next disputed presidential election, whenever it will
occur—as it surely will sooner or later? Will the U.S. Supreme Court
intervene again, as it did in/Bush v. Gore/? Or will it sit the next one
out, as it was urged to do in 2000, including by the four dissenters in
that case?
One of the existing institutional inadequacies is the uncertainty on
this point. The Court’s jurisdiction is discretionary: it can
intervene, or not, entirely as it chooses, without any need for
explanation or justification for its choice one way or the other. Yet,
as any election law practitioner or scholar will say, one of the most
important values when designing a system for the resolution of
vote-counting disputes is the clarity and predictability in advance of
casting the ballots to the rules that will apply afterward. The Supreme
Court’s discretionary power to involve itself, or not, is entirely
contrary to this important value. Yet it is a feature that remains
unchanged in the aftermath of 2000.
There are additional institutional deficiencies that still afflict our
system. If the next dispute over vote-counting in a presidential
election goes all the way to Congress—as 1876 did—then the controlling
statute will be the Electoral Count Act of 1887, adopted a decade after
Hayes-Tilden because something was necessary after the nation had come
dangerously close to another electoral meltdown in 1884. But as
described in Chapter Six of/Ballot Battles/, the authors of the 1887 Act
knew it was a horribly flawed piece of legislation. It was just the
best that they could accomplish at the time, and they hoped that
Congress later would come back to improve the product. Congress never has.
One possible solution would be to make the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction
mandatory in a disputed presidential election, so the nation at least
would know which institution is ultimately responsible in this
situation. But if one thinks that the Court, with its currently
partisan 5-4 split, is less than the ideal body to decide this kind of
case, there are other options. Minnesota, for example, has used
three-judge panels—two from each party to the dispute, with a neutral
tiebreaker—to adjudicate the lawsuits over both its 1962 gubernatorial
election and its 2008 U.S. Senate race.
If Congress does nothing, however, and the nation faces the next
disputed presidential election with no institutional reform having
occurred, then history teaches this lesson: the nation will be at the
mercy of some individual character. It might be a Supreme Court Justice
like Anthony Kennedy. Or it might be a Speaker of a House like Samuel
Randall. But it will be a person who will occupy an office that was not
designed for the purpose of adjudicating a disputed presidential
election. Thus, we can only hope that this individual, when called upon
to exercise this most arduous adjudicatory duty, will do so with the
greatest sense of fairness and integrity that this particular person is
capable of summoning.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78245&title=Ned%20Foley%3A%20The%20Great%20Dissenter%20in%20Plessy%20Anticipated%20the%20Role%20for%20Federal%20Courts%20Embraced%20in%20Bush%20v.%20Gore%E2%80%94But%20Will%20the%20Court%20Repeat%20that%20Role%20Next%20Time%20and%2C%20If%20Not%2C%20What%20Then%3F&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
WI: “Federal judge dismisses voter ID challenge but allows other
parts of lawsuit to continue” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78445>
Posted onDecember 17, 2015 5:10 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78445>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP
<http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/81de7bf9aa424b2cac6002000aed9804/WI--Voting-Lawsuit>:
Wisconsin’s requirement that voters show photo identification at the
polls has survived another legal challenge after a federal judge
Thursday dismissed portions of a wide-ranging lawsuit alleging the
mandate burdens the right to vote.
I have posted the judge’s 11-page opinionat this link
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/one-wisconsin.pdf>. It is
notable on two grounds. First, it leaves open the possibility that an
election administration law passed with bad partisan intent for no good
reason could be unconstitutional. Second, the court wrote this about
Wisconsin’s voter identification law, which the 7th Circuit has already
upheld as constitutional:
Defendants move to dismiss any claim that Wisconsin’s voter ID law
is illegal, and plaintiffs concede that their challenge to
Wisconsin’s voter ID law is doomed under current circuit law.
Plaintiffs press the claim here only to preserve the opportunity to
argue for reversal of Frank. Defendants’ motion will be granted
because this court is constrained to follow Frank. But I will take
the opportunity to express skepticism at the notion that voter ID
laws promote confidence in elections, which Frank accepted as a
rational benefit of such laws. 768 F.3d at 750-51. My skepticism has
two bases. First, for those who believe plaintiffs’ story of how and
why Wisconsin has a voter ID law, Wisconsin’s law is a method of
voter suppression, which undermines rather than promotes confidence
in Wisconsin’s elections. Second, “confidence” itself is a dubious
benefit. Well-grounded confidence in the electoral process is a good
thing, which might increase voter participation. But confidence
based on anything other than rational reasons supported by evidence
is either foolishness or superstition, neither of which are reasons
to pass legislation or to uphold it as constitutional. Whether voter
ID laws promote well-grounded confidence in the electoral process is
a fact that should be verified, even if I am constrained here to
accept it as an established “legislative fact.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78445&title=WI%3A%20%26%238220%3BFederal%20judge%20dismisses%20voter%20ID%20challenge%20but%20allows%20other%20parts%20of%20lawsuit%20to%20continue%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>
UC Irvine: Plutocrats United Book Talk
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78442>
Posted onDecember 17, 2015 3:33 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78442>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Event:
<http://www.law.uci.edu/events/election-law/plutocrats-united-2016feb.html>
Plutocrats United Book Talk
/Monday, February 8, 2016/
/4:00–6:00 p.m./
/UC Irvine School of Law, Room 1131/
/Plutocrats United: Campaign Money, the Supreme Court, and the
Distortion of American Elections/
<http://yalepress.yale.edu/Book.asp?isbn=9780300212457>, is the new
book by election law Professor Rick Hasen
<http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/index.html>.
Prof. Hasen will discuss the book, and Dean Erwin Chemerinsky will
provide commentary. Audience Q & A and book signing will follow.
Campaign financing is one of today’s most divisive political issues.
The left asserts that the electoral process is rife with corruption.
The right protests that the real aim of campaign limits is to
suppress political activity and protect incumbents. Meanwhile, money
flows freely on both sides. In/Plutocrats United/, Richard Hasen
argues that both left and right avoid the key issue of the new
Citizens United era: balancing political inequality with free speech.
The Supreme Court has long held that corruption and its appearance
are the only reasons to constitutionally restrict campaign funds.
Progressives often agree but have a much broader view of corruption.
Hasen argues for a new focus and way forward: if the government is
to ensure robust political debate, the Supreme Court should allow
limits on money in politics to prevent those with great economic
power from distorting the political process.
This event is free, but RSVP is required by*Monday, Feb. 1*.
*/RSVP online here >/*
<https://ucisl.ejoinme.org/MyEvents/ProfRickHasenBookTalk/tabid/739331/Default.aspx>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78442&title=UC%20Irvine%3A%20Plutocrats%20United%20Book%20Talk&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
Breaking: WI Partisan Gerrymandering Claim Survives Motion to
Dismiss <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78439>
Posted onDecember 17, 2015 3:04 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78439>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
A partisan gerrymandering claim challenging Wisconsin’s redistricting of
its general assemblyhas survived a motion to dismiss
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Whitford-v-Nichol-order-on-MTD-2015.17.15.pdf>before
a three-judge federal court. This is a bigger deal than might first appear.
The state of play in partisan gerrymandering claims is a crazy one:
thanks to the position of Justice Kennedy in the Supreme Court (in the
/Vieth/case and others), partisan gerrymandering claims are
“justiciable” (meaning the courthouse door is open to raising the
claims), but every usual standard that plaintiffs have raised to try to
/prove/a partisan gerrymander has been rejected by Justice Kennedy.
Kennedy’s message in essence is: keep trying to come up with a
judicially manageable standard that separates permissible from
impermissible consideration of party in redistricting. So if you are a
plaintiff bringing such suits, you have to raise something
/different/from what’s already been raised as well as something which
could well attract the votes of five Justices, including Justice Kennedy.
Plaintiffs in the Wisconsin case have raised a kind of partisan symmetry
argument, one which J. Kennedy did not completely close the door to in
earlier cases. In particular, plaintiffs in this case are relying on the
“efficiency gap” measurement set forth in Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos &
Eric M. McGhee,Partisan Gerrymandering and the Efficiency Gap
<https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawreview.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/82_2/04%20Stephanopoulos_McGhee_ART.pdf>,
82 U. Chi. L. Rev. 831 (2015).
In today’s opinion, a three-judge court unanimously held that there was
enough alleged as to standing and the merits on the efficiency gap being
a justiciable, manageable standard to survive a motion to dismiss. This
means that the case would then go to summary judgment stage, or
potentially even a trial. The judges were quite clear that as evidence
comes into the case, they have not committed to ruling for the plaintiffs.
So there is a long road ahead in this case for plaintiffs. But not
getting kicked out at the first stop is itself a big deal.
This is one to watch.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78439&title=Breaking%3A%20WI%20Partisan%20Gerrymandering%20Claim%20Survives%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
“The Ghosts of Elections Past — and Yet to Come”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78437>
Posted onDecember 17, 2015 11:10 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78437>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ned Foley
<http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly>leads off
this week’s Electionline Weekly.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78437&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20Ghosts%20of%20Elections%20Past%20%E2%80%94%20and%20Yet%20to%20Come%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,recounts
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=50>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Trial set in lawsuit challenging contribution limits”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78435>
Posted onDecember 17, 2015 11:08 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78435>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
News
<https://www.adn.com/article/20151217/trial-set-lawsuit-challenging-contribution-limits>from
Alaska.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78435&title=%26%238220%3BTrial%20set%20in%20lawsuit%20challenging%20contribution%20limits%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“These four reasons explain why bipartisanship is breaking out all
over. Will it last?” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78433>
Posted onDecember 17, 2015 11:07 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78433>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Must-read Sarah Binder.
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/12/17/these-four-reasons-explain-why-bipartisanship-is-breaking-out-all-over-will-it-last/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78433&title=%26%238220%3BThese%20four%20reasons%20explain%20why%20bipartisanship%20is%20breaking%20out%20all%20over.%20Will%20it%20last%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inlegislation and legislatures
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>,political parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,political polarization
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>
OH: “Civic Organizations Urge State to Stop Illegal Removal of
Voters from the Rolls” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78431>
Posted onDecember 17, 2015 11:05 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78431>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Release
<http://www.demos.org/press-release/civic-organizations-urge-state-stop-illegal-removal-voters-rolls>:
Today, Demos and the ACLU of Ohio, on behalf of the civil
rights-labor organization the Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute
(APRI),sent apre-litigationnotice letter
<http://www.demos.org/publication/ohio-compliance-section-8-national-voter-registration-act>to
Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted demanding that the State stop
illegally removing voters from its voter registration rolls. The
letter makes clear that Ohio is violating federal law by using
failure to vote as a reason to purge voters from the rolls.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78431&title=OH%3A%20%26%238220%3BCivic%20Organizations%20Urge%20State%20to%20Stop%20Illegal%20Removal%20of%20Voters%20from%20the%20Rolls%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,NVRA (motor voter)
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
Today’s Must Read: NYT Magazine Jim Rutenberg Piece on Voting Rights
in Pasadena, TX <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78429>
Posted onDecember 17, 2015 10:16 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78429>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
A deep dive
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/magazine/block-the-vote.html>into the
state of Hispanic voting rights in the U.S., through the lens of a Texas
town.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78429&title=Today%26%238217%3Bs%20Must%20Read%3A%20NYT%20Magazine%20Jim%20Rutenberg%20Piece%20on%20Voting%20Rights%20in%20Pasadena%2C%20TX&description=>
Posted inThe Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“GOP Riders Fuel Secret Spending” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78426>
Posted onDecember 17, 2015 9:58 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78426>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Eliza’s latest.
<http://prospect.org/article/gop-riders-fuel-secret-spending>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78426&title=%26%238220%3BGOP%20Riders%20Fuel%20Secret%20Spending%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,tax law
and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
“Donald Trump is an erratic phony. Why believe he won’t try a
third-party run?” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78424>
Posted onDecember 17, 2015 7:52 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78424>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Lucia Graves
<http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/17/donald-trump-third-party-pledge-history>for
Guardian Opinion.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78424&title=%26%238220%3BDonald%20Trump%20is%20an%20erratic%20phony.%20Why%20believe%20he%20won%26%238217%3Bt%20try%20a%20third-party%20run%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>
“New Poll: Broad Support for Small-Donor Driven Solutions to Money
in Politics” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78422>
Posted onDecember 17, 2015 7:24 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78422>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Every Voice
<http://everyvoice.org/press-release/new-poll-small-donor-driven-solutions>:
Seventy-two percent of Americans, a broad,
bipartisan majority, support small-donor solutions to overhaul our
broken campaign-finance system, according to new polling released
today by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner for Democracy Corps and Every Voice.
“Voters from across the political spectrum agree that America has a
money-in-politics problem and small-donor driven reforms are the
answer,” said *David Donnelly, Every Voice president and CEO*.
“Americans — and particularly millennials — understand that when our
presidential elections are funded by a small set of
unrepresentative, elite donors, the voices of everyday people are
not heard. Small-donor reform is good policy and good politics, and
candidates should rally Americans to this cause.
“While Bernie Sanders is already sounding these themes, if Hillary
Clinton did so more often and consistently by elevating her entire
platform, these results point to how she would benefit by going on
offense to effectively neutralize the criticisms likely to be levied
against her about fundraising from big-money donors,” Donnelly
continued.
“The public understands we are in a new and dangerous era when it
comes to the influence of money in politics, and voters of all
political persuasions are insisting on campaign reform. It is time
for our leaders to catch up,” said *Stan Greenberg, co-founder of
Democracy Corps and CEO of GQR*. “Candidates have nothing to lose
when it comes to talking about money in politics on the campaign
trail—and everything to gain.”
Key findings from the poll:
* *Broad, bipartisan support for small-donor solutions*.
Seventy-two percent of Americans including majorities of
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents favor a plan to address
the role of money in politics with a small-donor public
financing system combined with disclosure for all political
spending by outside groups and strictly enforced election laws.
* *There is an upside for Democrats including Hillary Clinton to
talk about money-in-politics solutions on the campaign trail*.
Sixty-four percent of Americans are more likely to think
positively of Hillary Clinton after hearing her discuss her
pro-reform agenda on money in politics.
* *Going on offensive by talking about money-in-politics solutions
early bolsters Democrats including Hillary Clinton against
attacks.* In the face of criticism, Hillary Clinton holds or
gains ground in a head-to-head matchup against Donald Trump
after voters hear her money-in-politics platform followed by a
battery of messages from critics.
* *Voters are concerned about the outsized influence of a small,
unrepresentative donor class*. When asked to select their top
concerns about money in politics from a list, voters were most
concerned that big donors aren’t like regular people.
Thirty-nine percent of respondents were concerned that donors
are “overwhelmingly white, rich, older and male, and have made
their money in finance, oil and coal in a nation that is
increasingly younger, more diverse, and where women are a
majority.” Poll respondents also expressed concern over the
fact that many presidential super PACs are raising more than
their campaign counterparts and that just 158 families
contributed nearly half of all the money raised for presidential
candidates so far this cycle.
View and/or download the full polling memo here.
<http://everyvoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Dcor_Dec-National_Memo_EveryVoice_12.15.2015.pdf>Here’s
a graph showing support for small-donor driven solutions
among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents:
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78422&title=%26%238220%3BNew%20Poll%3A%20Broad%20Support%20for%20Small-Donor%20Driven%20Solutions%20to%20Money%20in%20Politics%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Congressional Omnibus Spending Bill Includes Funds For EAC”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78420>
Posted onDecember 17, 2015 7:21 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78420>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Doug Chapin
<http://editions.lib.umn.edu/electionacademy/2015/12/17/congressional-omnibus-spending-bill-includes-funds-for-eac/>with
some good news.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78420&title=%26%238220%3BCongressional%20Omnibus%20Spending%20Bill%20Includes%20Funds%20For%20EAC%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,Election Assistance Commission
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=34>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Window for an independent Trump bid is wide open”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78418>
Posted onDecember 17, 2015 7:19 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78418>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I thinkthis Politico piece
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/donald-trump-independent-run-republicans-216884>seriously
underestimates the hurdles facing Trump should he choose to run in a
third-party bid.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78418&title=%26%238220%3BWindow%20for%20an%20independent%20Trump%20bid%20is%20wide%20open%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“The Omnibus and the Direction of the Reform Debate”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78416>
Posted onDecember 17, 2015 7:10 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78416>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bauer blogs.
<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2015/12/omnibus-direction-reform-debate/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78416&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20Omnibus%20and%20the%20Direction%20of%20the%20Reform%20Debate%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Spending bill bars IRS and others from forcing political
disclosure” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78414>
Posted onDecember 17, 2015 7:10 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78414>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Fredreka Schouten reports
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/12/16/spending-bill-bars-irs-and-others-forcing-political-disclosure/77422872/>for
USA Today.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78414&title=%26%238220%3BSpending%20bill%20bars%20IRS%20and%20others%20from%20forcing%20political%20disclosure%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,tax law
and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
ELB Podcast Episode 8. Pam Karlan: Voting Rights In America, 2016
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78405>
Posted onDecember 16, 2015 9:09 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78405>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
What is the state of voting rights in the United States as we approach
the 2016 elections? Has the loss of a key portion of the Voting Rights
Act thanks to the Supreme Court’s /Shelby County/ decision made it
harder to register and vote? What tools do voting rights advocates have
to fight the latest efforts to restrict access to the ballot?
On Episode 8 of the ELB Podcast, we talk to Stanford Law Professor Pam
Karlan <https://law.stanford.edu/directory/pamela-s-karlan/>.
You can listen to the ELB Podcast Episode 8 onSoundcloud
<https://soundcloud.com/rick-hasen/elb-podcast-episode-8-pam-karlan-voting-rights-in-america-2016>orsubscribe
at iTunes
<https://geo.itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/elb-podcast/id1029317166?mt=2>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78405&title=ELB%20Podcast%20Episode%208.%20Pam%20Karlan%3A%20Voting%20Rights%20In%20America%2C%202016&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting
Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
--
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/20151217/116f99db/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/20151217/116f99db/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ballotbattles-200x300.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4873 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151217/116f99db/attachment.jpeg>
View list directory