[EL] ELB News and Commentary 2/24/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Tue Feb 24 07:45:25 PST 2015
"Bousquet: Gov. Rick Scott cuts state losses in long voting fight”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70513>
Posted onFebruary 24, 2015 7:43 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70513>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
/Tampa Bay Times/
<http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/legislature/bousquet-gov-rick-scott-cuts-state-losses-in-long-voting-fight/2218815>column.
<http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/legislature/bousquet-gov-rick-scott-cuts-state-losses-in-long-voting-fight/2218815>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70513&title=%E2%80%9CBousquet%3A%20Gov.%20Rick%20Scott%20cuts%20state%20losses%20in%20long%20voting%20fight%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inNVRA (motor voter) <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>,The
Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Results of Kentucky election get tossed over vote-buying
allegations” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70511>
Posted onFebruary 24, 2015 7:40 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70511>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Fox News.
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/23/results-kentucky-election-get-tossed-over-vote-buying-allegations/?intcmp=trending>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70511&title=%E2%80%9CResults%20of%20Kentucky%20election%20get%20tossed%20over%20vote-buying%20allegations%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inchicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>,vote buying
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=43>
“Trend 1: The rise of majority-minority and near-majority-minority
states” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70509>
Posted onFebruary 24, 2015 7:36 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70509>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
States of Change
<https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/progressive-movement/report/2015/02/24/107261/states-of-change/>
The Demographic Evolution of the American Electorate, 1974–2060
<https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/progressive-movement/report/2015/02/24/107261/states-of-change/>
The demographics of the United States are projected to become much more
diverse in the coming decades and will have significant effects on the
nation’s voting electorate in all 50 states.
ByRuy Teixeira <https://www.americanprogress.org/?person=teixeira-ruy>,
William H. Frey,Rob Griffin
<https://www.americanprogress.org/?person=griffin-rob>|Tuesday, February
24, 2015
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70509&title=%E2%80%9CTrend%201%3A%20The%20rise%20of%20majority-minority%20and%20near-majority-minority%20states%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Another Attack on Election Reform: Congressional Redistricting
Commissions” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70507>
Posted onFebruary 24, 2015 7:27 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70507>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Alan Morrison
<http://www.acslaw.org/publications/issue-briefs/another-attack-on-election-reform-congressional-redistricting-commissions?mgs1=18aejiTv3H>for
ACS.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70507&title=%E2%80%9CAnother%20Attack%20on%20Election%20Reform%3A%20Congressional%20Redistricting%20Commissions%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incitizen commissions
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=7>,redistricting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“How Dark Money Is Distorting Politics and Undermining Democracy”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70505>
Posted onFebruary 24, 2015 7:22 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70505>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Fiscal Times.
<http://rebootamerica.thefiscaltimes.com/index.php/how-dark-money-is-distorting-politics-and-undermining-democracy/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70505&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20Dark%20Money%20Is%20Distorting%20Politics%20and%20Undermining%20Democracy%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“California ethics panel rejects exceptions to lobbyist fundraising
rules” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70503>
Posted onFebruary 24, 2015 7:21 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70503>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
LAT reports.
<http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-california-ethics-panel-rejects-exceptions-to-lobbyist-fundraising-rules-20150219-story.html>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70503&title=%E2%80%9CCalifornia%20ethics%20panel%20rejects%20exceptions%20to%20lobbyist%20fundraising%20rules%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,lobbying
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
“Final Tally: 2014’s Midterm Was Most Expensive, With Fewer Donors”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70501>
Posted onFebruary 24, 2015 7:20 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70501>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Open Secrets
<https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/02/opensecrets-org-unveils-new-section-on-expenditures/?utm_source=CRP+Mail+List&utm_campaign=af546cccf9-Executive_Director_Appeal_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9df8578d78-af546cccf9-206469445>:
The final figures are in: The 2014 election was the most expensive
midterm election in history, costinga grand total of $3.77 billion
<http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/cost.php>. But for the first
time since 1990, fewer Americans donated money in this midterm
election than the one before. Simply put, more money went into the
system, but fewer people provided it.
On Nov. 5, the Center for Responsive Politicsprojected
<http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/11/money-won-on-tuesday-but-rules-of-the-game-changed/>the
2014 election would be the most expensive midterm ever based on how
much was spent through early October. A new analysis taking into
account year-end filings confirms that projection — and finds our
estimate was low by roughly $104 million.
Among the most significant findings that can now be confirmed is
that there were far fewer identifiable donors in the 2014 election
than in the 2010 cycle. Then, CRP counted 869,602 donors; in 2014,
we have been able to identify just 773,582 — a decline of more than
96,000, or about 11 percent. (A caveat: Our figure accounts only for
those who gave more than $200, since the FEC does not require donors
of less than that to be itemized on campaign finance reports.)
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70501&title=%E2%80%9CFinal%20Tally%3A%202014%E2%80%99s%20Midterm%20Was%20Most%20Expensive%2C%20With%20Fewer%20Donors%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
AP Tracks Rep. Schock’s Travel via Private Planes via Instagram
Metadata <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70498>
Posted onFebruary 23, 2015 3:15 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70498>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Lesson
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e2f1f52c3eb34caca7d74e5bf90f27f9/lawmaker-lavish-decor-billed-private-planes-concerts>for
politicians everywhere.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70498&title=AP%20Tracks%20Rep.%20Schock%E2%80%99s%20Travel%20via%20Private%20Planes%20via%20Instagram%20Metadata&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
Supreme Court Accepts Supplemental Brief on One Person, One Vote
Issue in Alabama Redistricting Case
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70496>
Posted onFebruary 23, 2015 2:37 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70496>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Today the Supreme Courtordered
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022315zor_e2pg.pdf>this
brie <http://pub.bna.com/lw/ALBC.pdf>f to be accepted for filing.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70496&title=Supreme%20Court%20Accepts%20Supplemental%20Brief%20on%20One%20Person%2C%20One%20Vote%20Issue%20in%20Alabama%20Redistricting%20Case&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“The inside story of how big business lost Washington”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70494>
Posted onFebruary 23, 2015 2:27 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70494>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Interesting
piece<http://fortune.com/2015/02/20/the-inside-story-of-how-big-business-lost-washington/>in
Fortune.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70494&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20inside%20story%20of%20how%20big%20business%20lost%20Washington%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inlobbying <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
“Law Professors Urge Supreme Court to Accept Case and Overturn North
Carolina Redistricting Decision” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70492>
Posted onFebruary 23, 2015 2:24 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70492>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
CLC
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/content/law-professors-urge-supreme-court-accept-case-and-overturn-north-carolina-redistricting>:
On February 17, 2015, in/Dickson v. Rucho/, Campaign Legal Center
Executive Director J. Gerald Hebert joined with a dozen other
nationally recognized election law professors in abrief
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/sites/default/files/Dicksonv.RuchoAmicusBriefatPetitionStage.pdf>urging
the U.S. Supreme Court to accept a case and overturn a state supreme
court ruling upholding North Carolina’s redistricting. In
supporting the petition for writ of/certiorari,/the brief from the
thirteen voting rights experts emphasizes that the North Carolina’s
racially gerrymandered districts violate the Voting Rights Act and
the Equal Protection Clause.
The law professors argue the lower court’s decision fundamentally
misunderstands and misapplies U.S. Supreme Court precedent on
redistricting in order to uphold North Carolina’s redistricting.
Further, the brief emphasizes that if the North Carolina State
Supreme Court ruling is not overturned, it will afford states a
constitutional safe harbor from which to undermine the Voting Rights
Act.
“The audacity of the legislature’s attempt to use the Voting Rights
Act as a shield for its racial gerrymander is outdone only by the
North Carolina Supreme Court acceptance of the argument,” said
Hebert. “If the decision by the North Carolina Supreme Court is not
overturned, it will provide a blueprint for widespread circumvention
of the Voting Rights Act by using the landmark civil rights
legislation to actually dilute the voting strength of minority
communities rather than protect them. North Carolina’s
justification for their packing of minority voters and their blatant
racial gerrymandering that such actions were required by the Voting
Rights Act turns the Act on its head and is precisely the kind of
over-reliance on race that has been rejected by the Court in
previous cases.”
In addition to Hebert (who currently teaches voting rights courses
at Georgetown University Law Center and New York Law School), the
other election law professors signing the brief are Campaign Legal
Center board member Guy-Uriel Charles (Duke Law School), Jocelyn
Benson (Wayne State University Law School), Michael Kent Curtis
(Wake Forest University School of Law), Gilda Daniels (University of
Baltimore School of Law), Joshua A. Douglas (University of Kentucky
College of Law), Atiba R. Ellis (West Virginia University College of
Law), Justin Levitt (Loyola Law School), Eugene D. Mazo (Wake
Forest University School of Law), Spencer Overton (George Washington
University Law School), Terry Smith (DePaul University College of
Law), Douglas Spencer (University of Connecticut Law School), and
Franita Tolson (Florida State University College of Law).
To read the brief, click here
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/sites/default/files/Dicksonv.RuchoAmicusBriefatPetitionStage.pdf>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70492&title=%E2%80%9CLaw%20Professors%20Urge%20Supreme%20Court%20to%20Accept%20Case%20and%20Overturn%20North%20Carolina%20Redistricting%20Decision%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Internet Freedom Works” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70490>
Posted onFebruary 23, 2015 2:16 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70490>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
FCC commissioner Ajit Pai and FEC commissioner Lee Goodman have
writtenthis Politico oped.
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/fcc-internet-regulations-ajit-pai-115399.html#.VOumblPF-fJ>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70490&title=%E2%80%9CInternet%20Freedom%20Works%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Obama Administration Using Century-Old Racist Case Law to Block
Citizenship” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70488>
Posted onFebruary 23, 2015 2:14 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70488>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Mother Jones
<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/obama-birthright-citizenship-racist-american-samoa-tuaua>:
Well, this is awkward. This month, five people from American
Samoa—the only place in the world where babies born on US soil are
denied US citizenship—argued in federal court that the government’s
refusal to grant them birthright citizenship violates the
Constitution. On the other side of the case is the Obama
administration, which cited century-old Supreme Court decisions that
spoke of “savage,” “uncivilized,” and “alien races”—and many legal
scholars now see as outright racist—to justify continuing to deny
citizenship to these US nationals.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70488&title=%E2%80%9CObama%20Administration%20Using%20Century-Old%20Racist%20Case%20Law%20to%20Block%20Citizenship%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted invoting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
Is it Possible to Be In Favor of a Right-to-Vote Amendment but
Against Amending the Constitution? Yes.
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70486>
Posted onFebruary 23, 2015 8:38 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70486>byHeather Gerken
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=6>
The DNC Executive Committee has justendorsed
<http://www.fairvoteblog.com/2015/02/right-to-vote-amendment-secures.html>the
idea that we should amend the Constitution to add a right to vote. I’m
entirely in favor of a constitutional right to vote. But I’m against
amending the Constitution to add it. There areexcellent scholars and
organizations in favor of amendment
<http://www.fairvoteblog.com/2015/02/right-to-vote-amendment-secures.html>,
including Jaimie Raskin, Alex Keyssar, the Advancement Project, and
FairVote. But I remain skeptical and havea new paper
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2567394>explaining
why I fear that the amendment game is not worth the candle.
There are two stages for ensuring a robust right to vote: (1) amending
the Constitution, and (2) enforcing that amendment. As to the first
stage, if an amendment enshrining the right to vote looks anything like
its cognates in the Constitution, it will be thinly described,
maddeningly vague, and pushed forward by self-interested politicians. If
the amendment takes this form, the benefits reformers and academics
assert we’ll reap are anything but automatic. Once a vague guarantee is
embedded in the Constitution (Stage 1), reformers will/still/have to
turn to legislators and courts to get something done (Stage 2).
Making the text more concrete may make Stage 2 easier, but it will
complicate efforts to pass the amendment in the first place. After all,
if it were easy to enfranchise former felons or block voter ID rules or
guarantee a well-administered election system or end partisan
gerrymandering, we would presumably have done it already. It’s possible,
of course, that reformers could aim for something more than vague
language, either by writing their aims explicitly into the text or
creating an amendment history so robust that everyone understands what
the right embodies. On this view, reformers would build a big tent of
supporters by linking the amendment to lots of different reforms.
The problem with this strategy is that it will also generate a big tent
on the other side. Push for felon enfranchisement, and you’ll run up
against the tough-on-crime lobby. Tempt progressives with a ban on voter
ID and lose the support of many Republicans. Promise to end
gerrymandering and lose the support of most incumbents. That’s why a
vague textual guarantee is so tempting an option in Stage 1, even if it
creates more work for Stage 2.
If I had a magic wand, I’d wave it in order to add the right to vote to
the Constitution. As I noted inmy paper
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2567394>, there are
lots of reasons to value it. But magic wands are in short supply, as are
the political resources needed to pass an amendment. Given the
challenges involved in getting it passed and, more importantly, robustly
enforced, it makes more sense to pour those resources into more discrete
reform projects going forward.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70486&title=Is%20it%20Possible%20to%20Be%20In%20Favor%20of%20a%20Right-to-Vote%20Amendment%20but%20Against%20Amending%20the%20Constitution%3F%20%20Yes.&description=>
Posted inelection law and constitutional law
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=55>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,voting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31> |Taggedamendment
<http://electionlawblog.org/?tag=amendment>,right to vote
<http://electionlawblog.org/?tag=right-to-vote>
--
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/20150224/85336d30/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/20150224/85336d30/attachment.png>
View list directory