[EL] ELB News and Commentary 2/10/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Tue Feb 10 08:29:40 PST 2015
“Diverse Coalition of Civil Rights and Legal Groups File Briefs
Urging Supreme Court to Address Voter ID as Issue of National
Importance” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70220>
Posted onFebruary 10, 2015 8:28 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70220>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
From the “be careful what you wish for” department:
<http://www.advancementproject.org/news/entry/diverse-coalition-file-briefs-urging-supreme-court-to-address-voter-id>
A broad alliance of civil rights and legal groups representing the
communities most impacted by Wisconsin’s restrictive voter ID law,
as well as all 46 members of the Congressional Black Caucus,
filedamici briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court
<http://advancementproject.org/pages/wi-scotus-amici-curiae>this
week urging justices to hear a case against the state’s law.
Advancement Project has been challenging the discriminatory law, on
behalf of African-American and Latino individual and organizational
plaintiffs, for more than two years under Section 2 of the Voting
Rights Act. The national civil rights organization brought their
suit to the Supreme Court after the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals upheld Wisconsin’s law last October.
The briefs filed on Monday came from:
*
Congressional Black Caucus
<http://www.advancementproject.org/page/-/Brief%20of%20Amicus%20Curiae%20CBC.pdf>
*
Latino Justice PRLDEF
<http://www.advancementproject.org/page/-/Brief%20of%20Amici%20Curiae%20LatinoJustice.pdf>
*
National Council of La Raza
<http://www.advancementproject.org/page/-/Brief%20of%20Amici%20Curiae%20LatinoJustice.pdf>
*
Hispanic National Bar Association
<http://www.advancementproject.org/page/-/Brief%20of%20Amici%20Curiae%20LatinoJustice.pdf>
*
Hispanic Federation
<http://www.advancementproject.org/page/-/Brief%20of%20Amici%20Curiae%20LatinoJustice.pdf>
*
National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials
(NALEO)
<http://www.advancementproject.org/page/-/esjt/files/resources/Brief%20of%20Amicus%20Curiae%20NALEO.pdf>
*
League of Women Voters
<http://www.advancementproject.org/page/-/Brief%20of%20Amici%20Curiae%20LWV.pdf>
*
The National Council on Independent Living
<http://www.advancementproject.org/page/-/Brief%20of%20Amicus%20Curiae%20NCIL.pdf>
*
OurTime.org
<http://www.advancementproject.org/page/-/esjt/files/resources/30873%20pdf%20Jaskol.pdf>
*
Rock the Vote
<http://www.advancementproject.org/page/-/esjt/files/resources/30873%20pdf%20Jaskol.pdf>
*
Color of Change
<http://www.advancementproject.org/page/-/Brief%20of%20Amicus%20Curiae%20ColorofChange.pdf>
*
The Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice
<http://www.advancementproject.org/page/-/Brief%20of%20Amici%20Curiae%20CHHI.pdf>
*
The Cyber Privacy Project
<http://www.advancementproject.org/page/-/Brief%20of%20Amici%20Curiae%20CHHI.pdf>
*
The Civil Rights Clinic at Howard Law School
<http://www.advancementproject.org/page/-/Brief%20of%20Amicus%20Curiae%20Howard%20Law.pdf>
*
One Wisconsin
<http://www.advancementproject.org/page/-/Brief%20of%20Amicus%20Curiae%20OneWisconsin.pdf>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70220&title=%E2%80%9CDiverse%20Coalition%20of%20Civil%20Rights%20and%20Legal%20Groups%20File%20Briefs%20Urging%20Supreme%20Court%20to%20Address%20Voter%20ID%20as%20Issue%20of%20National%20Importance%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Feds say Canseco took foreign campaign cash in 2010″
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70218>
Posted onFebruary 10, 2015 8:14 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70218>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Houston Chronicle reports.
<http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Feds-say-Canseco-took-foreign-campaign-cash-in-6071701.php>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70218&title=%E2%80%9CFeds%20say%20Canseco%20took%20foreign%20campaign%20cash%20in%202010%E2%80%B3&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“The Koch Brothers Raised $249 Million at Their Latest Donor Summit”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70216>
Posted onFebruary 10, 2015 8:12 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70216>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Andy Kroll reports
<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/koch-retreat-donors-249-million-2016>for
Mother Jones.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70216&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Koch%20Brothers%20Raised%20%24249%20Million%20at%20Their%20Latest%20Donor%20Summit%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Most Sarcastic Justice” Coming to The Green Bag
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70214>
Posted onFebruary 10, 2015 8:05 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70214>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I’m delighted to announce that my short piece, The Most Sarcastic
Justice, will be forthcoming in the Winter 2015 issue of theGreen Bag
<http://www.greenbag.org/>. (Truth be told, I wrote it hoping but not
expecting it would get accepted there and not sure what I would have
done with it if they didn’t. They are the perfect venue for this piece.)
I’ve posted a revised version, which responds a bit more fully to
methodological concerns,at SSRN
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2550923>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70214&title=%E2%80%9CMost%20Sarcastic%20Justice%E2%80%9D%20Coming%20to%20The%20Green%20Bag&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Missouri Senate passes ethics bill, but exempts itself from
lobbying restriction” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70212>
Posted onFebruary 10, 2015 8:01 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70212>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Nice.
<http://politicmo.com/2015/02/09/missouri-senate-passes-ethics-bill-but-exempts-itself-from-lobbying-restriction/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70212&title=%E2%80%9CMissouri%20Senate%20passes%20ethics%20bill%2C%20but%20exempts%20itself%20from%20lobbying%20restriction%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inconflict of interest laws
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>,lobbying
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
“In age of campaign mega-groups, solo spenders still compete”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70208>
Posted onFebruary 10, 2015 8:00 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70208>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP reports.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/in-age-of-campaign-mega-groups-solo-spenders-still-compete/2015/02/09/e4efeaa0-b022-11e4-bf39-5560f3918d4b_story.html>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70208&title=%E2%80%9CIn%20age%20of%20campaign%20mega-groups%2C%20solo%20spenders%20still%20compete%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“President Obama: I’d love a constitutional amendment to reverse
Citizens United” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70206>
Posted onFebruary 10, 2015 7:57 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70206>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Vox
<http://www.vox.com/2015/2/9/7992489/obama-citizens-united-constitutional-amendment>.
(My chosen musical accompaniment
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLPoukOg0lk>)
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70206&title=%E2%80%9CPresident%20Obama%3A%20I%E2%80%99d%20love%20a%20constitutional%20amendment%20to%20reverse%20Citizens%20United%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“D.C., other cities debate whether legal immigrants should have
voting rights” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70204>
Posted onFebruary 10, 2015 7:54 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70204>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo reports
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/should-legal-immigrants-have-voting-rightscontentious-issue-comes-to-dc-other-cities/2015/02/09/85072440-ab0f-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html>(viaChapin
<http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/electionacademy/2015/02/washington_post_examines_growi.php>).
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70204&title=%E2%80%9CD.C.%2C%20other%20cities%20debate%20whether%20legal%20immigrants%20should%20have%20voting%20rights%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted invoting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
Sad News: Ray Wolfinger Has Passed Away
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70202>
Posted onFebruary 9, 2015 5:35 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70202>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Co-author of Who Votes? and one of the greatest political scientists of
the last century. John Sides
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/02/08/the-political-scientist-ray-wolfinger-has-died/>has
remembrances.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70202&title=Sad%20News%3A%20Ray%20Wolfinger%20Has%20Passed%20Away&description=>
Posted inelection law biz <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>
#SCOTUS Helps Define Who is The Media
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70200>
Posted onFebruary 9, 2015 5:06 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70200>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
In working on my campaign finance book I’ve been working hard writing
about the media exemption. And along comes the Supreme Court itself
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/Media_Credential_Commentary_February_2015_mod.pdf>,
which has revamped its media access policy (andkicked out SCOTUSBlog
along the wa <http://t.co/5PjmG4qI8F>y; don’t worry, SCOTUSBlog has
aworkaround <https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/564834904450809857>).
One of the arguments the Court majority made in Citizens United is that
it is not fair or even possible in this day and age to single out “the
press” for special treatment under campaign finance laws.
Well the Supreme Court’s new policy actually defines what it thinks
contitutes the media:
Full-Time Journalist.
For purposes of our requirements, a “full-time journalist” is an
individual whose primary occupation is the regular gathering of
original news and reporting it to the public. We require the
applicant to be a “full-time journalist” because such journalists
are more likely to devote sustained attention to the Court’s work
and make use of the Court’s media resources. We expect that an
applicant will normally be able to satisfy the “full-time
journalist” requirement through the affirmation of the applicant’s
employer or supervisor. To determine whether this requirement has
been satisfied, we may also ask applicants if they hold active press
credentials from another government entity, such as the
Congressional or White House press galleries.
Operates or Is Employed by a Media Organization.
For purposes of our requirements, a “media organization” is an
entity that has as its principal business the regular gathering and
reporting of original news for the public, that disseminates its
reporting through publicly accessible media, and that has operated
continuously for the two years preceding the application for
credentials. A media organization can distribute information in any
medium (print, television, radio, electronic, or otherwise) and can
exist as any form of business or other entity. We require the
applicant to operate or to be employed by a media organization
because individuals so engaged are more likely to regularly and
broadly disseminate information about the Court to the public. We
expect that an applicant will normally be able to satisfy this
requirement through readily available documentation or a record of
publications. To ascertain whether this requirement is satisfied, we
may also ask applicants whether they hold active press credentials
from another government entity, such as the Congressional or White
House press galleries.
To ensure that an individual’s coverage will be disseminated through
a qualifying media organization, we require that an applicant’s
primary professional work must be for the media organization for
which the applicant seeks a credential. We intend to limit hard
passes to one journalist per media organization, although rare
exceptions may be made upon a demonstrated need. Correspondingly, a
hard pass may not be shared or transferred among representatives of
a media organization.
Substantial and Original Coverage of the Court.
We require that an applicant or the applicant’s media organization
have a record of “substantial and original news coverage of the work
of the Court” to ensure that hard passes are allocated to those who
have greatest need for the privileges they confer.
Journalists and organizations with records of substantial and
original coverage of the Court are more likely to disseminate
information about the Court’s work to the public. This requirement
may be satisfied by documentation of past reporting. For journalists
who have not previously covered the Court, the requirement may be
satisfied if the applicant’s media organization — rather than the
applicant — has regularly published substantial and original
reporting about the Court.
Regular Presence at the Court for Reporting Purposes.
The Court has increasingly made records, briefs, opinions, and
transcripts readily available on its Website, enabling journalists
to report on the Court’s work from remote locations. Consequently,
some journalists may cover the Court effectively without a regular
presence in the building. Nevertheless, access to the Courtroom
press section and pressroom remains important to other journalists.
We accordingly allocate press credentials to those journalists who
will actually use them. We expect that applicants will normally
satisfy the requirement of a regular presence by showing a past
record of frequent attendance at Court sessions.
Independence from Individuals and Legal Organizations that Practice
Law before the Court.
Lawyers have increasingly entered the domain of journalism,
appearing in the media to comment and report on pending cases and
legal developments. Many lawyers do so to bring expertise to the
reporting, but they may also do so to cultivate and promote their
legal practices and affect public perceptions about how the courts
should rule. The mixing of professional roles raises ethical
concerns. A court’s issuance of a press credential to an attorney
who practices before it can create, at the least, an appearance of
an unfair advantage over other attorneys through the use of the
journalistic privileges that the credential confers. That
consideration takes on special significance in the Supreme Court,
which adjudicates some of the Nation’s most important, sensitive,
and newsworthy legal issues.
We accordingly provide that an applicant for a hard pass may not
practice law before the Court. Similar ethical issues may arise if
lawyers establish employment relationships with journalists, or if
lawyers own or control media organizations. We therefore require
that an applicant must also be independent of individuals and
organizations that practice law before the Supreme Court. Because of
the difficulties of assessing or monitoring the effectiveness of a
media organization’s internal safeguards or “firewalls,” we require
that an applicant may not be employed or supervised by a lawyer, law
firm, or other legal organization that practices before the Court.
Similarly, an applicant may not be employed by a media organization
owned or controlled by a lawyer, law firm, or legal organization
that practices before the Court.
For purposes of our requirements, and to provide a clear rule, we
will consider an individual to “practice law before the Court” if
the individual has participated as a lawyer in a Supreme Court case
during the two years preceding the application for a hard pass.
Similarly, a law firm or other legal organization “practice[s] law
before the Court” if anyindividual at that firm or organization has
appeared as a lawyer in a Supreme Court case in the two years
preceding the application for a hard pass. Supreme Court Bar
membership alone does not trigger these prohibitions.
Not Employed by the Court within Last Two Years.
As an additional ethical safeguard, we require that an applicant
must not have been employed by the Court during the two years
preceding the application for a hard pass. This requirement ensures
that there is no perception that an applicant receives preferential
treatment or advantage based on prior employment with the Court.
This requirement is consistent with the Court’s familiar rule that
former Court employees may not practice before the Court during the
two years that follow separation from employment./See/Sup. Ct. R. 7.
There. That was not so hard.
Delicious!
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70200&title=%23SCOTUS%20Helps%20Define%20Who%20is%20The%20Media&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Civil Rights Leaders Upset Over Non-Voting Rights Act Hearing”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70198>
Posted onFebruary 9, 2015 4:29 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70198>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Dallas Weekly reports
<http://www.dallasweekly.com/news/national/article_ab00fbec-b093-11e4-bd88-ab2b6ae45392.html>.
I think in the headline the “Non-” should be modifying hearing not
voting rights.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70198&title=%E2%80%9CCivil%20Rights%20Leaders%20Upset%20Over%20Non-Voting%20Rights%20Act%20Hearing%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>,VRAA
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=81>
Interesting New Cert. Petition: When Can A Single Judge Decide You
Don’t Get a 3-Judge-Court in a Redistricting Case?
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70196>
Posted onFebruary 9, 2015 2:08 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70196>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
ReadShapiro v. Mack
<https://www.scribd.com/doc/255231531/Shapiro-v-Mack-Petition-for-Cert>cert
petition.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70196&title=Interesting%20New%20Cert.%20Petition%3A%20When%20Can%20A%20Single%20Judge%20Decide%20You%20Don%E2%80%99t%20Get%20a%203-Judge-Court%20in%20a%20Redistricting%20Case%3F&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
At #SCOTUS, Wisconsin Files Its Voter ID Opposition to Cert.
Petition <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70193>
Posted onFebruary 9, 2015 2:04 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70193>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Read it here.
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/wi-opp-cert.pdf>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70193&title=At%20%23SCOTUS%2C%20Wisconsin%20Files%20Its%20Voter%20ID%20Opposition%20to%20Cert.%20Petition&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
Ravel and Weintraub: Come on Over to the FEC
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70191>
Posted onFebruary 9, 2015 2:02 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70191>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Press release via email:
Chair Ann M. Ravel and Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub:
FEC To Hold Public Hearing on Wednesday, February 11
Federal Election Commission Chair Ann M. Ravel and Commissioner
Ellen L. Weintraub are pleased to invite you to the Commission’s
public hearing, where the Commission will hear testimony from
members of the public on how to improve campaign finance rules to
promote transparency in political spending and fight corruption. The
hearing will begin at 8:15 am on Wednesday, February 11, in the
Commission’s 9th Floor Hearing Room. The Commission’s work in
ensuring transparency is fundamental to our democracy, and should be
of concern to all. When the Commission reached out for public
comment on the state of our elections in the wake of McCutcheon v.
FEC and other Supreme Court decisions, over 32,000 Americans
commented. These comments came from Americans of all walks of life.
They overwhelmingly urge the Commission to increase disclosure of
political spending and limit the influence of money in our
elections. Now, the Commission will open its doors for a public
hearing, after soliciting wide-ranging public comments on a number
of issues affecting our campaign finance rules. All who wish to
testify will have an opportunity to share their views directly with
the Commission. We encourage you to attend and cover this important
event.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70191&title=Ravel%20and%20Weintraub%3A%20Come%20on%20Over%20to%20the%20FEC&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,federal
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>
--
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/20150210/f387b3fd/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/20150210/f387b3fd/attachment.png>
View list directory