[EL] ELB News and Commentary 2/25/14
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Wed Feb 25 07:40:36 PST 2015
“Conservative think tank files suit over campaign finance law”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70537>
Posted onFebruary 25, 2015 7:39 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70537>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP
<https://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2015/02/conservative_think_tank_files_suit_over_campaign_finance_law>:
“A conservative think tank on Tuesday sued the state over a rule that
allows unions and certain other groups to make campaign donations of up
to $15,000 while barring businesses from making any direct political
donations to candidates.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70537&title=%E2%80%9CConservative%20think%20tank%20files%20suit%20over%20campaign%20finance%20law%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Hillary’s State Department OK’d Bill’s big-money speeches”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70535>
Posted onFebruary 25, 2015 7:33 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70535>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Josh Gerstein reports
<http://electionlawblog.org/%20http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/ethics-approval-came-easily-at-hillary-clintons-state-department-115468.html#ixzz3Sl8GdVOT>for
Politico.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70535&title=%E2%80%9CHillary%E2%80%99s%20State%20Department%20OK%E2%80%99d%20Bill%E2%80%99s%20big-money%20speeches%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inconflict of interest laws <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>
#SCOTUS Decides One of Its Most Important Noscitur a Sociis/Ejusdem
Generis Cases Ever <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70531>
Posted onFebruary 25, 2015 7:27 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70531>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Today the Court divides 5-4
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-7451_m64o.pdf>on whether
“records and documents” are similar to “fish and crocodiles” in some
meaningful way. It’s a party for statutory interpretation geeks.
Really interesting to watch Justice Kagan write a super-snarky dissent
(is the the /second/most sarcastic Justice in waiting?—and against
Justice Ginsburg no less!), for herself and Justices Kennedy, Scalia and
Thomas. She even gets in her legislative history without committing to
it for those like Scalia who reject its use: “And legislative history,
for those who care about it, puts extra icing on a cake already frosted.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70531&title=%23SCOTUS%20Decides%20One%20of%20Its%20Most%20Important%20Noscitur%20a%20Sociis%2FEjusdem%20Generis%20Cases%20Ever&description=>
Posted inlegislation and legislatures
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>,statutory interpretation
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=21>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Finding Alternatives to Runoff Elections Just Got More Urgent”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70529>
Posted onFebruary 25, 2015 7:17 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70529>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Peach Pundit
<http://www.peachpundit.com/2015/02/25/finding-alternatives-to-runoff-elections-just-got-more-urgent/>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70529&title=%E2%80%9CFinding%20Alternatives%20to%20Runoff%20Elections%20Just%20Got%20More%20Urgent%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,military voting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=48>
“Executive Discretion and the Rule of Law: A Positive Analysis of
Presidential Signing Statements” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70527>
Posted onFebruary 25, 2015 7:14 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70527>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Dan Rodriguez, Edward Stiglitz, and Barry Weingast have postedthis draft
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2564824>on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
Executive discretion over policy outcomes is an inevitable feature
of our political system. However, our commitment to separation of
powers constrains this discretion; for example, through
congressional instructions embedded in statutes and enforced by
courts. In interpreting statutes, courts often look to extrinsic
evidence of legislative intent, as embodied in sources of
legislative history, to resolve ambiguities and to implement
legislative intent. Such practices constrain executive discretion
and can potentially thwart presidential ambition.
In recent years, the President has sought to expand his discretion
through signing statements, statements that purport to have status
in the interpretation of statutory meaning. Such efforts raise
significant questions of executive power, with negative implications
for the rule of law. Drawing on positive political theory, we
develop a simple separation of powers model that studies the various
ways in which courts might treat signing statements. We show how
different treatment by courts raise different implications for the
rule of law and the separation of powers. Major changes follow when
courts grant these statements legal status, significantly enhancing
the president’s power while limiting that of Congress. Our models
also show that, in a wide range of cases, Congress prefers the
status quo – that is, no legislation – to legislation followed by a
presidential signing statement. These statements thus exacerbate
gridlock. We conclude that courts should not in general endow
signing statements with any legal status beyond that afforded to a
presidential statement made in a memo or campaign speech.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70527&title=%E2%80%9CExecutive%20Discretion%20and%20the%20Rule%20of%20Law%3A%20A%20Positive%20Analysis%20of%20Presidential%20Signing%20Statements%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inlegislation and legislatures
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>,statutory interpretation
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=21>
“Who’s Pulling the Strings? As out-of-state interest groups mount a
growing front around the 2015 Montana Legislature, both on the
ground and within the walls of the statehouse, outside influence is
playing into state politics at an unprecedented rate”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70525>
Posted onFebruary 25, 2015 7:10 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70525>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Flathead Beacon.
<http://flatheadbeacon.com/2015/02/25/whos-pulling-strings/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70525&title=%E2%80%9CWho%E2%80%99s%20Pulling%20the%20Strings%3F%20As%20out-of-state%20interest%20groups%20mount%20a%20growing%20front%20around%20the%202015%20Montana%20Legislature%2C%20both%20on%20the%20ground%20and%20within%20the%20walls%20of%20the%20statehouse%2C%20outside%20influence%20is%20playing%20into%20state%20politics%20at%20an%20unprecedented%20rate%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,lobbying
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
“EAC Commissioners Select New Officers & Accredit Voting System Test
Lab” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70523>
Posted onFebruary 24, 2015 9:00 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70523>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Press release
<http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Documents/EAC%20Selects%20Officers%20&%20Accredits%20Voting%20System%20Test%20Lab-News-Release-FINAL-2-24-15.pdf>:
Members of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) met
Tuesday. This meeting marked the first time the Commission was able
to meet with a quorum of Commissioners in four years. The Commission
addressed a variety of pressing issues at the meeting. These issues
included the accreditation of a new voting system test laboratory;
consideration of possible updates to the standards used to test
voting systems; and updates to the EAC’s voting system testing
program manuals. Additionally, Commissioner Christy McCormick was
selected to chair the Commission and Commissioner Thomas Hicks was
selected as vice-chair.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70523&title=%E2%80%9CEAC%20Commissioners%20Select%20New%20Officers%20%26%20Accredit%20Voting%20System%20Test%20Lab%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,Election Assistance Commission
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=34>
WI Voter ID Opponents File #SCOTUS Reply to Get Court to Take Case
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70520>
Posted onFebruary 24, 2015 12:34 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70520>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
You can read the short replyhere
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/wisc-reply.pdf>. The
reply makes a good and important timing point:
This case is the/only/vehicle that guarantees the Court an
opportunity to address the constitutional and statutory questions
surrounding restrictive voter ID laws/before/the 2016 presidential
election. Wisconsin admits that this case is “procedurally far ahead
of the cases from Texas and North Carolina.” Opp. 10. In Texas,
Fifth Circuit briefing will continue through mid-March, followed by
oral argument, a panel decision, and possibly a petition for
rehearing. Id. North Carolina is even farther behind; trial is
not scheduled to begin until July. Opp. 12. There is no guarantee
that this Court could consider either case before the end of the
October 2015 Term.
Postponing consideration of these issues also would tangibly harm
hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites and millions of other
Americans. On issues of profound national importance affecting large
numbers of citizens in multiple states, this Court need not wait
for issues to percolate, especially when, as here, lower court
decisions already reflect significant disagreement. See, e.g., King
v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 475 (2014); Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558
(2003). Wisconsin is wrong that the Texas case—which is still being
briefed in the Fifth Circuit—is a “superior candidate for review.”
Opp. 10. It is irrelevant that Texas has enforced its law “since
November 2013.” Id. Whenever possible, courts should resolve
challenges to discriminatory election laws before states
enforce those laws in elections. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 585
(1964). Moreover, the record already reflects Act 23’s “impact, if
any, on voter turnout.” Opp. 11. Wisconsin’s own expert agreed at
trial that Act 23 “is likely to suppress voter turnout in the State
of Wisconsin.” Trial Tr. 1477. This conclusion is confirmed by
Plaintiffs’ expert, numerous studies concerning other states’ voter
ID laws, and a recent report by the Government Accountability
Office. Pet. 26.
Certworthiness does not depend on which state’s voter ID law is
“stricter.” Opp. 11. In some ways, Texas’s voter ID law, SB 14, is
stricter than Act 23: Wisconsin accepts two forms of photo ID that
Texas rejects. See id. But in other key ways, Act 23 is the stricter
law: in Texas, “those over 65 or disabled can vote by mail” without
photo ID. Veasey v. Perry, No. 13-cv-193, 2014 WL 5090258, at *34
(S.D. Tex. Oct. 9, 2014). Anyway, Act 23 is a prototypical
restrictive voter ID law that provides a perfect vehicle to
guide lower courts’ review of similar laws. ColorofChange.org Amicus
Br. 6–9.
tThe Texas district court’s finding of an “official discriminatory
purpose” for SB 14 (Opp. 11) cuts in favor of granting the present
petition. One would hope that judicial findings of intentional
racial discrimination by a state legislature will be rare.
This case, by contrast, presents the more common and recurring
question whether Act 23 violates Section 2 based on the
discriminatory impact on African-American and Latino voters. Even if
this Court granted review of Texas’s case, a decision striking down
SB 14 as intentionally discriminatory would not necessarilyresolve
the critically important questions in this case and prevalent in
much of the country.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70520&title=WI%20Voter%20ID%20Opponents%20File%20%23SCOTUS%20Reply%20to%20Get%20Court%20to%20Take%20Case&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>
“Seth Endo & Liz Kennedy: Citizens United, the Koch Brothers,
Corruption, and Democracy” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70518>
Posted onFebruary 24, 2015 12:27 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70518>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Guernica.
<https://www.guernicamag.com/daily/seth-endo-liz-kennedy-citizens-united-the-koch-brothers-corruption-and-democracy/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70518&title=%E2%80%9CSeth%20Endo%20%26%20Liz%20Kennedy%3A%20Citizens%20United%2C%20the%20Koch%20Brothers%2C%20Corruption%2C%20and%20Democracy%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“‘Dark Money’ robocalls push Ducey’s education agenda”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70516>
Posted onFebruary 24, 2015 12:24 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70516>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Arizona Republic reports.
<http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2015/02/24/robocalls-signal-new-era-political-advocacy/23921981/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70516&title=%E2%80%9C%E2%80%98Dark%20Money%E2%80%99%20robocalls%20push%20Ducey%E2%80%99s%20education%20agenda%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,lobbying
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
--
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/20150225/f832f916/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/20150225/f832f916/attachment.png>
View list directory