[EL] ELB News and Commentary 7/9/15

Thu Jul 9 07:40:52 PDT 2015

    “Gov. Christie’s Chance to Do Right by Voters”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74168>

Posted onJuly 9, 2015 7:38 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74168>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT editorial. 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/09/opinion/gov-christies-chance-to-do-right-by-voters.html>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74168&title=%E2%80%9CGov.%20Christie%E2%80%99s%20Chance%20to%20Do%20Right%20by%20Voters%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

    Fishkin on the SCOTUS AZ Redistricting Decision
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74166>

Posted onJuly 9, 2015 7:35 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74166>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

At Balkinization 
<http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/07/constitutional-problem-solving.html>:

    Constitutional problem-solving plays a complex role in
    constitutional interpretation and adjudication. It is not a license
    to read principles into the Constitution that are not there, or to
    ignore principles that are there. It is not a license to override
    clear commands: even if widespread age discrimination is a pressing
    constitutional problem, this is not a good enough reason to
    disregard the rule that the President must be 35 years old. Instead,
    constitutional problem-solving is something courts do when
    interpretive work is called for, at the same time that they are
    doing other forms of interpretive work. In/Legislature v. AIRC/,
    despite the dissent’s insistence that the term “Legislature” is
    completely unambiguous, the real question in the case, and it is not
    a particularly easy question, is whether that term ought to be read
    institutionally or functionally. If read functionally—the
    legislature is the power that legislates—then the Arizona commission
    is fine; if read institutionally, the Elections Clause requires the
    Arizona State Legislature to have the authority over districting and
    the AIRC would lose.

    It was lost on none of the Justices writing in/Legislature v.
    AIRC/that the institutional reading favored by the dissenters would
    hard-wire into our constitutional order a commitment to allowing
    partisans (the legislators) to draw Congressional district lines,
    with only the judiciary even potentially left to stand in the way of
    egregious gerrymanders (and likely not even that). The only question
    was whether acknowledging this bolstered the majority’s
    constitutional interpretation or revealed its illegitimacy.

    Courts can try to go about the work of constitutional interpretation
    clause by clause and word by word, viewing small units like the word
    “Legislature” like little scientific specimens, as if interpretation
    were a science. They can consult dictionaries and the rest of the
    textualist tool chest. But I actually do not think it is possible to
    avoid thinking about the larger constitutional problems that an
    interpretation either helps solve or makes worse. If judges are
    being honest with themselves, they acknowledge that this is part of
    what they’re doing. The real question is which constitutional
    problems they think are worthy of attention.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74166&title=Fishkin%20on%20the%20SCOTUS%20AZ%20Redistricting%20Decision&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

    “The D.C. Circuit in Wagner: Aspects of Appearances in the Defense
    of The Embattled Law” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74163>

Posted onJuly 9, 2015 7:31 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74163>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bauer 
<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2015/07/d-c-circuit-wagner-aspects-appearances-defense-law/>:

    This is one impression the case leaves – that without dissent, and
    for this class of contributors, the Court was prepared to affirm
    unambiguously affirm the government’s regulatory authority.  But
    then, after a step back,/Wagner/also illustrates how much excitement
    in this day and age of declining expectations about the campaign
    finance reform laws can develop around a case with limited practical
    effect that exposes problematic features of the current regulatory
    regime and its defense.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74163&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20D.C.%20Circuit%20in%20Wagner%3A%20Aspects%20of%20Appearances%20in%20the%20Defense%20of%20The%20Embattled%20Law%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

    “The Illusion of a Liberal Supreme Court”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74161>

Posted onJuly 9, 2015 7:29 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74161>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Linda Greenhouse 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/09/opinion/the-illusion-of-a-liberal-supreme-court.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0>in 
the NYT:

    As a mirage in the morning light, the “liberal Roberts court”
    narrative is now fading. Chief Justice Roberts is clearly no
    traitor; he was, in fact, in dissent in three of the four most
    important liberal victories, the exception being his majority
    opinion in King v. Burwell that saved the Affordable Care Act. And
    the liberal justices were unable at the end of the term to dissuade
    their colleagues from dragging the court back into the morass of
    affirmative action; the new term will revisit a now laughably moot
    challenge to the University of Texas admissions plan. The chance
    that the court’s liberals will be able to deflect a crushing defeat
    for public employee unions,in another case
    <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/friedrichs-v-california-teachers-association/>to
    be heard in the new term, appears vanishingly small.

    It’s fading, but not fast enough. The “liberal Roberts court” theme
    retains its grip, and I worry that it may become the received wisdom
    about the 2014-15 term as public attention moves on from theSupreme
    Court
    <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org>.
    On the eve of the presidential primaries, it’s important that
    progressives not be lulled by a few welcome decisions into thinking
    that the court is in safe hands. The court that gutted theVoting
    Rights Act
    <http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/v/voting_rights_act_1965/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>and
    hijacked the First Amendment as a deregulatory tool (remember
    Citizens United?) is, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, the court we
    have. It’s not the court we might wish we had.

Linda is one of the great speakers we have lined up for Monday’s5th 
annual Supreme Court term in review event at UCI Law 
<http://www.law.uci.edu/events/supreme-court-term-review/2015.html>, 
which will be live webcast at noon Pacific (July 13).

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74161&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Illusion%20of%20a%20Liberal%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme 
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,Voting Rights Act 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>

    “Unlimited party fundraising and spending gives you less polarized
    legislatures? Discuss.” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74159>

Posted onJuly 9, 2015 7:25 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74159>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Ray LaRaja and Brian Schaffner write 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/07/08/unlimited-party-fundraising-and-spending-gives-you-less-polarized-legislatures-discuss/>at 
The Monkey Cage:

    Lee Drutman’s recent Monkey Cagepiece
    <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/06/23/can-unlimited-contributions-to-political-parties-really-reduce-polarization/>challenges
    a finding from our forthcoming book,/Campaign Finance and Political
    Polarization:When Purists Prevail
    <http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/Book.html>/. That is, that states
    that allow parties to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money
    tend to have less polarized legislatures. This finding has important
    implications for how we regulate money in politics. Thus, it is not
    surprising that the finding is attracting challenges from reform
    circles.

    In this post, we will briefly identify problems with Drutman’s
    analysis. We will then describe in greater detail why we think we
    are on solid empirical footing in concluding that removing campaign
    finance limits on parties may help to reduce how polarized our
    politics currently appear.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74159&title=%E2%80%9CUnlimited%20party%20fundraising%20and%20spending%20gives%20you%20less%20polarized%20legislatures%3F%20Discuss.%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,political parties 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,political polarization 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>

    “Secretary of State Kobach unveils voting fraud website”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74157>

Posted onJuly 8, 2015 4:50 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74157>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

KSN reports. 
<http://ksn.com/2015/07/08/secretary-of-state-kobach-unveils-voting-fraud-website/>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74157&title=%E2%80%9CSecretary%20of%20State%20Kobach%20unveils%20voting%20fraud%20website%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,fraudulent fraud squad 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>,The Voting Wars 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

    Read the Complaint in the New Wisconsin Redistricting Case
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74154>

Posted onJuly 8, 2015 4:46 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74154>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Here <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/wisconsinComplaint.pdf>.

Note the reliance on the McGhee-Stephanopoulos “efficiency gap.”

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74154&title=Read%20the%20Complaint%20in%20the%20New%20Wisconsin%20Redistricting%20Case&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>

    “Don’t celebrate redistricting commissions”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74152>

Posted onJuly 8, 2015 2:35 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74152>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Former CO SOS Scott Gessler in the/Denver Post/: 
<http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_28447955/guest-commentary-dont-celebrate-redistricting-commissions>

    Before celebrating redistricting commissions, The Denver Post should
    look at Colorado’s history with its so-called “independent”
    reapportionment commission. For three decades now, that commission
    has ruthlessly carved out partisan gerrymanders for our state
    legislative districts.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74152&title=%E2%80%9CDon%E2%80%99t%20celebrate%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>

    “Watchdogs Urge FCC to Enforce & Improve Broadcaster Public File
    Accessibility Rules” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74150>

Posted onJuly 8, 2015 2:34 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74150>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Press release 
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/news/press-releases/watchdogs-urge-fcc-enforce-improve-broadcaster-public-file-accessibility-rules>.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74150&title=%E2%80%9CWatchdogs%20Urge%20FCC%20to%20Enforce%20%26%20Improve%20Broadcaster%20Public%20File%20Accessibility%20Rules%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

    “High-Dollar Fundraising Makes Comeback, Raises Bribery Concerns”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74148>

Posted onJuly 8, 2015 12:08 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74148>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Eliza Newlin Carney 
<http://www.rollcall.com/news/high_dollar_fundraising_makes_comeback_raises_bribery_concerns-242715-1.html?zkPrintable=true>writes 
for Roll Call.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74148&title=%E2%80%9CHigh-Dollar%20Fundraising%20Makes%20Comeback%2C%20Raises%20Bribery%20Concerns%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inbribery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>,campaign finance 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

    “A Federal Court Just Threatened Citizens United”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74146>

Posted onJuly 8, 2015 12:07 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74146>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

David Schultz blogs 
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/federal-court-citizens-united>at TPM 
Cafe.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74146&title=%E2%80%9CA%20Federal%20Court%20Just%20Threatened%20Citizens%20United%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

    Post-Remand Brief from Alabama Democrats Now Available
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74143>

Posted onJuly 8, 2015 12:04 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74143>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

You can read the briefhere 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/ADC-Post-Remand-Brief.pdf>, 
co-authored by Rick Pildes. It includes an extensive discussion of the 
meaning and scope of the Supreme Court’s Alabama redistricting case.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74143&title=Post-Remand%20Brief%20from%20Alabama%20Democrats%20Now%20Available&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,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/20150709/1242eb8f/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/20150709/1242eb8f/attachment.png>