[EL] ELB News and Commentary 7/13/15

[Rick Hasen]

    TODAY: Live Webcast of @UCILaw #SCOTUS Term in Review Monday 12 pm
    PDT <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74225>

Posted onJuly 13, 2015 7:51 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74225>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

[Bumping to the top]

On Monday, July 13 at 12 pm pacific time, tune in for thelive webcast 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuXuoGwqyDc>of the @UCILaw 5th Annual 
Supreme Court Term in Review 
<http://www.law.uci.edu/events/supreme-court-term-review/2015.html>, 
discussing this year’s blockbuster Supreme Court term. The panelists:

  * Erwin Chemerinsky
    <http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/chemerinsky/index.html>,
    UCI Law
  * Linda Greenhouse <http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/7296.htm>, Yale
    Law School/The New York Times
  * Song Richardson
    <http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/richardson/index.html>,
    UCI Law
  * Kannon K. Shanmugam <https://www.wc.com/kshanmugam>, Williams &
    Connolly LLP
  * Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton
    <http://www.uscourts.gov/JudgesAndJudgeships/BiographicalDirectoryOfJudges.aspx>,
    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
  * Moderated byRick Hasen
    <http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/index.html>, UCI Law

Submit questions via Twitter, using the hash tag*#ucilawscotus*at the 
end of your question.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74225&title=TODAY%3A%20Live%20Webcast%20of%20%40UCILaw%20%23SCOTUS%20Term%20in%20Review%20Monday%2012%20pm%20PDT&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “Race or Party?: How Courts Should Think About Republican Efforts to
    Make it Harder to Vote in North Carolina and Elsewhere”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74269>

Posted onJuly 13, 2015 7:50 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74269>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Re-uppingmy/Harvard Law Review Forum/piece 
<http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/01/race-or-party-how-courts-should-think-about-republican-efforts-to-make-it-harder-to-vote-in-north-carolina-and-elsewhere/>as 
the North Carolina voting right trial starts today.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74269&title=%E2%80%9CRace%20or%20Party%3F%3A%20How%20Courts%20Should%20Think%20About%20Republican%20Efforts%20to%20Make%20it%20Harder%20to%20Vote%20in%20North%20Carolina%20and%20Elsewhere%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>


    Record Number of Dissents from #SCOTUS Conservative Justices
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74267>

Posted onJuly 13, 2015 7:46 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74267>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Must-read 
<http://jostonjustice.blogspot.com/2015/07/for-courts-conservatives-worst-term-ever.html>from 
@JostonJustice:

    In fact, it was a bad term overall for Scalia: apparently his worst
    ever. He dissented in 23 cases, the highest number at least since
    the 1992-93 term when I began counting dissenting votes for my
    annual series/Supreme Court Yearbook/.
    Scalia was not alone. The court’s three other reliable conservatives
    also had personal-worst years. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in
    29 cases: not only his highest number, but also the highest figure
    for/any/justice since OT 1992. Justice John Paul Stevens held the
    previous record: 28 dissents in two separate terms, 1999-2000 and
    2008-09.
    The/Supreme Court Yearbook/compilation does not reach back to
    Scalia’s first six terms or Thomas’s first. But the court’s
    conservatives generally held sway during those years, so their
    dissenting numbers were unlikely to have been on the high side.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74267&title=Record%20Number%20of%20Dissents%20from%20%23SCOTUS%20Conservative%20Justices&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “N.C. Trial Outcome Could Sway National Voting Rights Measures”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74265>

Posted onJuly 13, 2015 7:44 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74265>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NPR reports. 
<http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/07/13/421739909/n-c-trial-outcome-could-sway-national-voting-rights-measures>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74265&title=%E2%80%9CN.C.%20Trial%20Outcome%20Could%20Sway%20National%20Voting%20Rights%20Measures%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


    “Conservative PACs raise millions, spend little on politics”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74263>

Posted onJuly 13, 2015 7:42 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74263>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Sunlight reports. 
<http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2015/07/13/conservative-pacs-raise-millions-spend-little-on-politics/>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74263&title=%E2%80%9CConservative%20PACs%20raise%20millions%2C%20spend%20little%20on%20politics%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


    “California’s initiative process needs reform — not repeal”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74261>

Posted onJuly 13, 2015 7:35 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74261>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bob Stern 
<http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/jul/11/californias-initiative-process-needs-reform-not/>in 
the /San Diego Union-Tribune/:

    Thus, any changes will be difficult to pass, but if I could amend
    the initiative process, here is what I would do:

     1. Extend the number of days that a measure could be circulated
        from 180 days to a full year. This would allow grass-roots
        proponents a chance to get signatures without having to pay
        large sums for professional circulators.
     2. Require the Legislature to hold a hearing on the measure before
        it qualifies for the ballot. If the Legislature passes the
        measure in a form suitable to the drafters of the initiative, it
        would be taken off the ballot. This proposal might mean a
        reduction of one or two initiatives that voters would have to
        consider at the ballot box.
     3. After the legislative hearing, allow the proponents to amend
        their measure without having to recirculate it, provided the
        amendments are approved by the Attorney General’s Office as
        being consistent with the purposes and goals of the original
        initiative. This proposal would make for better drafted measures.
     4. Allow the Legislature to amend any statutory initiative that is
        approved by the voters by a two-thirds vote provided the
        legislative amendments further the purposes of the initiative.
        Most initiatives today allow such amendments, but some do not.
        This proposal would reduce the need for another measure to clean
        up the original initiative.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74261&title=%E2%80%9CCalifornia%E2%80%99s%20initiative%20process%20needs%20reform%20%E2%80%94%20not%20repeal%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted indirect democracy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>


    “Applying Section 2 to the New Vote Denial”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74259>

Posted onJuly 13, 2015 7:34 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74259>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

With the North Carolina voting trial opening today, here’syour must-read 
from Dan Tokaji 
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2622172>(forthcoming,/Harvard 
Civil-Rights Civil-Liberties Law Review):/

    Over the past decade, many states have enacted laws that make it
    more difficult for eligible citizens to vote. In 2006, I labeled
    such restrictions the “new vote denial,” comparing them to practices
    that were used to disenfranchise African Americans before enactment
    of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”). Much has happened since
    then. Voting rights advocates have challenged state voting
    restrictions under both the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 2 of
    the VRA, with mixed success. In 2014, the Supreme Court was asked to
    intervene in four cases involving Section 2 vote denial claims. The
    Court allowed voting restrictions to take effect in Ohio, North
    Carolina, and Texas, while temporarily stopping Wisconsin’s voter ID
    law. Yet the legal test governing Section 2 vote denial claims
    remains uncertain.

    This article proposes a three-part test for Section 2 vote denial
    claims, one that builds upon my previous scholarship, the work of
    other scholars, and decisions by the Supreme Court and lower courts.
    First, plaintiffs would have to demonstrate that the challenged
    practice has a disparate impact on minority voters. Second,
    plaintiffs would have to demonstrate that the disparate impact is
    traceable to the challenged practice’s interaction with social and
    historical conditions, including but not limited to intentional
    discrimination by the state. Third, courts should balance the harm
    to minority voters against the state’s proffered interests. At this
    stage, the burden would lie with the state to show by clear and
    convincing evidence that the challenged practice’s benefits outweigh
    its harms to voters. Because my proposed test draws on the standard
    for vote denial claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, its
    application falls safely within the scope of Congress’
    constitutional enforcement power.

    Section 2 litigation is no panacea, but could serve as an effective
    shield against some forms of the new vote denial, complementing
    constitutional claims. Part I of the Article provides background on
    Section 2, focusing on the uncertainty over the precise standard
    that should govern burdens on participation. Part II discusses lower
    court decisions on vote denial claims under Section 2. Part III
    presents a refined standard for vote denial claims under Section 2,
    one that addresses practical problems that have emerged in lower
    court decisions and is consistent with Congress’ enforcement power.
    Part IV concludes with some observations on benefits and limitations
    of the race-discrimination model in preserving access to the vote.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74259&title=%E2%80%9CApplying%20Section%202%20to%20the%20New%20Vote%20Denial%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,Voting Rights Act 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


    “Rick Perry’s $6 million man: Rich donors pour massive sums into
    2016 super PACs” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74257>

Posted onJuly 12, 2015 9:46 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74257>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Matea Goldfor WaPo. 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/10/rick-perrys-6-million-man-rich-donors-pour-massive-sums-into-2016-super-pacs/>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74257&title=%E2%80%9CRick%20Perry%E2%80%99s%20%246%20million%20man%3A%20Rich%20donors%20pour%20massive%20sums%20into%202016%20super%20PACs%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


    “How a Pro-Regulation Decision Is Good for Business”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74255>

Posted onJuly 12, 2015 9:45 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74255>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy blogs. 
<https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/how-pro-regulation-decision-good-business>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74255&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20a%20Pro-Regulation%20Decision%20Is%20Good%20for%20Business%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


    “Effects of changes on minorities at crux of NC voting trial”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74253>

Posted onJuly 12, 2015 9:42 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74253>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

AP 
<http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Effects-of-changes-on-minorities-at-crux-of-NC-6380177.php>trial 
curtain-raiser.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74253&title=%E2%80%9CEffects%20of%20changes%20on%20minorities%20at%20crux%20of%20NC%20voting%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>,Voting Rights Act 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


    “Redistricting Reformers Are Having a Good Summer”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74251>

Posted onJuly 12, 2015 9:40 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74251>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Reid Wilson 
<http://morningconsult.com/2015/07/redistricting-reformers-are-having-a-good-summer/>at 
Morning Consult.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74251&title=%E2%80%9CRedistricting%20Reformers%20Are%20Having%20a%20Good%20Summer%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incitizen commissions 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=7>,redistricting 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>


    “Voting Rights Legacy of the ’60s Heads to Court as North Carolina
    Law Is Tested” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74249>

Posted onJuly 12, 2015 9:39 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74249>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Erik Eckholm 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/us/a-voting-rights-legacy-of-the-1960s-heads-to-court-in-north-carolina.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0>NYT 
A-1 curtain-raiser on North Carolina voting trial, starting Monday.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74249&title=%E2%80%9CVoting%20Rights%20Legacy%20of%20the%20%E2%80%9960s%20Heads%20to%20Court%20as%20North%20Carolina%20Law%20Is%20Tested%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,Voting Rights Act 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>

-- 
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/20150713/3058ac58/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/20150713/3058ac58/attachment.png>