[EL] ELB News and Commentary 2/28/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Sat Feb 28 09:09:12 PST 2015
“Argument preview: Who, exactly, is ‘the legislature’?”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70607>
Posted onFebruary 28, 2015 9:01 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70607>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Lyle Denniston previews
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/02/argument-preview-who-exactly-is-the-legislature/>the
Arizona redistricting case at SCOTUS.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70607&title=%E2%80%9CArgument%20preview%3A%20Who%2C%20exactly%2C%20is%20%E2%80%98the%20legislature%E2%80%99%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incitizen commissions
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=7>,Elections Clause
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>,redistricting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Justice Department ramps up scrutiny of candidates and independent
groups” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70605>
Posted onFebruary 28, 2015 8:56 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70605>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-department-ramps-up-scrutiny-of-candidates-and-independent-groups/2015/02/27/f28409d8-be8e-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html>:
The Justice Department is stepping up scrutiny of the increasingly
cozy ties between candidates and their outside allies, a move that
could jolt the freewheeling campaign-finance atmosphere ahead of the
2016 elections….Anthony Herman, another former FEC general counsel,
said it appears that federal prosecutors “view themselves as filling
a role — to the extent that they think the FEC is not on the job,
they think part of their job is to fill that gap.”
Even so, pursuing coordination cases and securing convictions is not
easy without inside information. The few known cases in which
federal prosecutors have investigated illegal coordination were
driven by tips they received while pursuing other alleged crimes.
“It is going to be very difficult to bring these kinds of cases and
to ferret out instances of unlawful coordination,” said Herman, a
senior counsel at Covington & Burling.
Nick Confessore
<https://twitter.com/nickconfessore/status/571695576905097216>: “WaPo
piece on illegal coordination probes is basically a big Justice
Department beg for whistleblowers. Hard to make these cases.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70605&title=%E2%80%9CJustice%20Department%20ramps%20up%20scrutiny%20of%20candidates%20and%20independent%20groups%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Lawmakers seek reform for Maine’s Clean Election law”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70603>
Posted onFebruary 28, 2015 8:52 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70603>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The /Maine Sun Journal/reports.
<http://www.sunjournal.com/news/maine/2015/02/27/lawmakers-seek-reform-maines-clean-election-law/1659784>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70603&title=%E2%80%9CLawmakers%20seek%20reform%20for%20Maine%E2%80%99s%20Clean%20Election%20law%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Wake judge allows case on voter ID law to proceed to trial”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70601>
Posted onFebruary 28, 2015 8:50 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70601>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
News and Observer
<http://www.thestate.com/2015/02/27/4015630/wake-judge-allows-case-on-voter.html>:
A Wake County judge has refused to dismiss a challenge to North
Carolina’s voter ID law, saying in a ruling issued Friday that most
of the claims in the lawsuit are strong enough to take to trial.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70601&title=%E2%80%9CWake%20judge%20allows%20case%20on%20voter%20ID%20law%20to%20proceed%20to%20trial%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>
“GOP Lawmakers Seek to Jump-Start Long-Running IRS Investigation;
Concerns raised at House hearing about possible IRS wrongdoing
during congressional probe” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70599>
Posted onFebruary 28, 2015 8:46 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70599>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WSJ
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-lawmakers-seek-to-jump-start-long-running-irs-investigation-1425060853>:
The new Republican-controlled Congress is trying to pump fresh life
into a long-running probe of alleged targeting of conservative
groups by the Internal Revenue Service.
Seeking to jump-start the stalled inquiry, GOP lawmakers raised
concerns at a House hearing on Thursday night about possible IRS
wrongdoing during the course of the probe.
The hearing by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee
revealed few new details, however, and Democrats accused Republicans
of airing the allegations prematurely, before all the evidence has
been gathered….
Investigators from the IRS inspector general’s office also suggested
some unnamed IRS officials might have withheld crucial information
about the backup tapes. “There is potential criminal activity,” said
deputy inspector general Timothy Camus, in response to a question by
Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio).
Mr. Camus and his boss, IRS inspector general J. Russell George,
cautioned repeatedly that their investigation isn’t yet complete,
and Mr. Camus acknowledged that suspicions of withholding evidence
might prove unfounded.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70599&title=%E2%80%9CGOP%20Lawmakers%20Seek%20to%20Jump-Start%20Long-Running%20IRS%20Investigation%3B%20Concerns%20raised%20at%20House%20hearing%20about%20possible%20IRS%20wrongdoing%20during%20congressional%20probe%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,tax law
and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
“New IRS Rules on Dark Money Likely Won’t Be Ready Before 2016
Election” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70597>
Posted onFebruary 28, 2015 8:45 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70597>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
ProPublica reports.
<http://njtoday.net/2015/02/26/new-irs-rules-dark-money-likely-wont-ready-2016-election/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70597&title=%E2%80%9CNew%20IRS%20Rules%20on%20Dark%20Money%20Likely%20Won%E2%80%99t%20Be%20Ready%20Before%202016%20Election%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,tax law
and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
“Fifty Years After Bloody Sunday in Selma, Everything and Nothing
Has Changed” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70595>
Posted onFebruary 28, 2015 8:40 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70595>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Read Ari Berman
<http://www.thenation.com/article/199217/fifty-years-after-march-selma-everything-and-nothing-has-changed#>.
Then you canpreorder his book
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0374158274/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1>,
“Give Us the Ballot: The Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70595&title=%E2%80%9CFifty%20Years%20After%20Bloody%20Sunday%20in%20Selma%2C%20Everything%20and%20Nothing%20Has%20Changed%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
Coming Soon: Issacharoff’s “Fragile Democracies”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70593>
Posted onFebruary 28, 2015 8:39 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70593>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Now available
<http://www.amazon.com/Fragile-Democracies-Contested-Constitutional-Cambridge/dp/1107654548/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1425054934&sr=8-6&keywords=issacharoff>for
pre-order:
Fragile Democracies: Contested Power in the Era of Constitutional
Courts (Cambridge Studies in Election Law and Democracy)Paperback–
May 31, 2015
bySamuel Issacharoff
<http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1?ie=UTF8&field-author=Samuel+Issacharoff&search-alias=books&text=Samuel+Issacharoff&sort=relevancerank>(Author)
Twenty-five years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the democratic
ascendency of the post-Soviet era is under severe challenge. While
fragile democracies in Eastern Europe, Africa, and East Asia face
renewed threats, the world has witnessed the failed democratic
promises of the Arab Spring. What lessons can be drawn from these
struggles? What conditions or institutions are needed to prevent the
collapse of democracy? This book argues that the most significant
antidote to authoritarianism is the presence of strong
constitutional courts. Distinct in the third wave of
democratization, these courts serve as a bulwark against
vulnerability to external threats as well as internal consolidation
of power. Particular attention is given to societies riven by deep
divisions of race, religion, or national background, for which the
courts have become pivotal actors in allowing democracy to take root.
Excited to read this!
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70593&title=Coming%20Soon%3A%20Issacharoff%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%9CFragile%20Democracies%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incomparative election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=107>
“The Difficulties of Reconciling Citizens United with Corporate Law
History” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70591>
Posted onFebruary 28, 2015 8:28 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70591>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Kobi Kastiel blogs.
<http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2015/02/27/the-difficulties-of-reconciling-citizens-united-with-corporate-law-history/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70591&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Difficulties%20of%20Reconciling%20Citizens%20United%20with%20Corporate%20Law%20History%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“The Common Cause Report On the ‘Crusade’ Against Campaign Finance
Regulation” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70589>
Posted onFebruary 28, 2015 8:27 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70589>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bauer blogs
<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2015/02/common-cause-report-crusade-campaign-finance-regulation/>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70589&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Common%20Cause%20Report%20On%20the%20%E2%80%98Crusade%E2%80%99%20Against%20Campaign%20Finance%20Regulation%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Why Silicon Valley is the new revolving door for Obama staffers”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70587>
Posted onFebruary 28, 2015 8:23 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70587>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo reports
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-obama-nears-close-of-his-tenure-commitment-to-silicon-valley-is-clear/2015/02/27/3bee8088-bc8e-11e4-bdfa-b8e8f594e6ee_story.html>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70587&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20Silicon%20Valley%20is%20the%20new%20revolving%20door%20for%20Obama%20staffers%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inlobbying <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
Alabama Files Supplemental Reply Brief in #SCOTUS Redistricting Case
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70584>
Posted onFebruary 28, 2015 8:18 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70584>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I have posted the briefhere
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/alabama-state-reply.pdf>.
It addresses a one person, one vote issue that plaintiffs claim have now
become ripe.
Background. <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70496>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70584&title=Alabama%20Files%20Supplemental%20Reply%20Brief%20in%20%23SCOTUS%20Redistricting%20Case&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Where have the federalists gone? Obamacare, King, and the Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70582>
Posted onFebruary 27, 2015 7:14 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70582>byAbbe Gluck
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=15>
The Obamacare case, /King v. Burwell/, which the Court will hear next
week, has deep importance not only for health care but also for law. I
have previously detailed why the case istextualism’s big test
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/symposium-the-grant-in-king-obamacare-subsidies-as-textualisms-big-test/>.
Today, in/Politico/, I explain why the case is also fundamentally about
state rights. The question is whether the Court’s federalism
doctrines–which, let’s not forget, the Court applied against the
Government in the last Obamacare case–whether these federalism
doctrines, like the Court’s textualist rules, are sufficiently
legitimate and objective such they will apply regardless of which side
they happen to support, even in a case as politicized as this one.
After all, isn’t that the point of have a rule of law in the first place?
Here is an excerpt and alink
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/king-v-burwell-states-rights-115550.html#.VPCGCU0o_Dc>.
The issue in/King/is whether the ACA penalizes states that opt out of
setting up their own health insurance exchanges and, instead, let the
federal government do it for them. The challengers have seized on four
words in this 2,000-page law that, they contend, contain a dramatic
consequence for the 34 states that have made this choice and allowed the
federal government to step in: the loss of critical insurance subsidies
that make health insurance affordable and sustain the insurance markets
under the law. Without the subsidies—which are estimated at $25 billion
across the 34 states—more than eight million Americans will likely lose
their insurance. And, as a result, the insurance markets in those states
will face near-certain collapse.
The challengers maintain that the case is simply about reading plain
language. (I have detailedelsewhere
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/symposium-the-grant-in-king-obamacare-subsidies-as-textualisms-big-test/>why
their hyper-literal reading of four words out of context is anything but
plain and is not how the Supreme Court usually reads statutes.)
But/King/is about a lot more than this. The case is about federalism—the
role of states in our national democracy. The reason the challengers
don’t want anyone to realize that is because the very text-oriented
justices to whom they are appealing are the exact same justices who have
consistently interpreted federal laws to protect states’ rights. And the
challengers would read the ACA in the opposite way—as having devastating
implications for the states.
The challengers’ interpretation turns Congress’s entire philosophy of
states’ rights in the ACA upside down. Congress designed the exchanges
to be state-deferential—to give the states a choice. But under the
state-penalizing reading that challengers urge, the ACA—a statute that
uses the phrase “state flexibility”/five/times—would be the most
draconian modern statute ever enacted by the U.S. Congress that included
a role for the states. What’s more, if interpreted as the challengers
hope, the ACA would have been debated, enacted and implemented for two
whole years under intense public scrutiny, including the scrutiny
trained on it during the last major constitutional challenge in the
Supreme Court in 2012, without anyone—no state, congressman or
blogger—noticing these consequences or objecting to them.
Abrief
<http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/BriefsV5/14-114_amicus_affirm_va.authcheckdam.pdf>filed
by Virginia and more than 20 other states attests that any clue of the
dramatic penalty the challengers have read into the statute was entirely
lacking. In the end,/King/is about whether an invented narrative that
only emerged for purposes of this case should be permitted to work the
greatest bait and switch on state governments in history.
Read
more:http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/king-v-burwell-states-rights-115550.html#ixzz3SxSbOrL4
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70582&title=Where%20have%20the%20federalists%20gone%3F%20Obamacare%2C%20King%2C%20and%20the%20Court&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“New Charges for Group That Disrupted Supreme Court”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70579>
Posted onFebruary 26, 2015 9:22 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70579>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP
<http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/charges-group-disrupted-supreme-court-29259088>:
Prosecutors took a hard line Thursday with demonstrators who
participated in a rare disruption inside the U.S.Supreme Court
<http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/us/supreme-court.htm>, adding
additional charges against them and saying disrupting the high court
is different from other protests in the nation’s capital.
The demonstrators, five women and two men, were arrested last month
after standing in succession inside the court and shouting protests
against the court’s 2010Citizens United
<http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/issues/citizens-united.htm>campaign
finance ruling. Each person stood and spoke after the court’s
justices took the bench but before oral arguments began on Jan. 21,
the fifth anniversary of the court’s Citizens United decision. The
decision freed corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited
amounts on Congressional and presidential elections.
Pretty clear they are worried about further disruptions.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70579&title=%E2%80%9CNew%20Charges%20for%20Group%20That%20Disrupted%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
--
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/20150228/81649a92/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/20150228/81649a92/attachment.png>
View list directory