[EL] ELB News and Commentary 7/24/15

[Rick Hasen]

    “Republicans Are About To Gut Campaign Finance Rules Even Further”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74561>

Posted onJuly 23, 2015 7:50 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74561>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Paul Blumenthal reports 
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republicans-campaign-finance_55b156e7e4b08f57d5d4313b?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics&section=politics>for 
HuffPo:

    Congressional Republicans are trying yet again to use the
    appropriations process to roll back campaign finance regulations.
    This time the target is the limit on coordinated spending between
    candidates and political parties — that is, money that a
    party spends to support a candidate in consultation with that candidate.

    A rider to the Senate’s Financial Services and General Government
    appropriations bill would eliminate the limits on coordination
    between candidates and political parties. This move to further gut
    campaign finance laws comes months after Republicans and Senate
    Democrats inserted a rider to the omnibus budget legislation passed
    in December tosignificantly raise the ceiling on contributions to
    national political parties
    <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/11/omnibus-campaign-finance-rider_n_6311776.html>.
    Thus far, only Republicans
    <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/27/billionaire-gop-donors_n_7673950.html> have
    taken advantage of those new, more generous limits.

    On Thursday, Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) attempted to strip the
    coordination rider in committee, but the effort failed on a 16-14
    party-line vote, with all Republicans opposed to removing the rider.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74561&title=%E2%80%9CRepublicans%20Are%20About%20To%20Gut%20Campaign%20Finance%20Rules%20Even%20Further%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


    Read the Opinion and Order in Greensboro NC Case
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74556>

Posted onJuly 23, 2015 6:44 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74556>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

21 page opinion 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/greensboro-opinion.pdf>

Order <http://t.co/bIzmDfPbzy>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74556&title=Read%20the%20Opinion%20and%20Order%20in%20Greensboro%20NC%20Case&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


    “Voting Rights on Trial, Again” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74554>

Posted onJuly 23, 2015 6:26 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74554>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

I missed thisOn Point 
<http://onpoint.wbur.org/2015/07/20/winston-salem-naacp-voting-rights-voting-fraud>segment 
earlier this week.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74554&title=%E2%80%9CVoting%20Rights%20on%20Trial%2C%20Again%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>


    Special Prosecutor in WI John Doe Case Still Mulling #SCOTUS Review
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74552>

Posted onJuly 23, 2015 6:08 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74552>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

See here. 
<http://www.wiscnews.com/news/state-and-regional/article_c6c9d2d4-2e02-570d-a8ed-9a7cd0733c81.html>

And there’s this on the raids:

    Experts in law enforcement have said it is difficult to judge the
    accuracy of published statements about the raids because the
    prosecutors and police are under a John Doe secrecy order and barred
    from telling their side of the story. And the John Doe targets
    haven’t challenged the legality of the raids in court, so
    prosecutors haven’t had a formal opportunity to respond.

    But there are indications that the raids may not have been conducted
    differently from searches seeking evidence against lower profile
    individuals.

    A command officer for the Dane County Sheriff’s Office said it isn’t
    uncommon for police to tell residents they can’t immediately make
    phone calls during a raid.

    If a series of searches is taking place, suspects could use the
    phone to warn others to flee or destroy evidence, said Capt. Jeff
    Teuscher. In any event, officers might want to make sure they had
    secured the premises before allowing individuals to move freely or
    make phone calls, Teuscher said. In contrast, the questioning of a
    suspect in custody ends as soon as a call to an attorney is
    requested, Teuscher said.

    Jeff Nichols, a Madison attorney who handles criminal defense cases,
    said that once a court has issued a search warrant and a raid has
    commenced, it is highly unlikely that a call to a lawyer could make
    a difference. Any challenge would be made later and the remedy might
    be that evidence couldn’t be used in court, Nichols said.

    Donald Downs, a UW-Madison professor emeritus in political science
    and constitutional law said no-knock raids are generally justified
    when a less forceful entry would legitimately pose a danger that
    evidence would be destroyed, suspects would flee, officer safety
    would be compromised or the investigation undermined.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74552&title=Special%20Prosecutor%20in%20WI%20John%20Doe%20Case%20Still%20Mulling%20%23SCOTUS%20Review&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,chicanery 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


    “Rent is Too ___ High” Party <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74549>

Posted onJuly 23, 2015 4:25 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74549>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

While updating my list of election litigation by year, I came across  an 
amusing case, McMillan v. D.C. Board of Elections, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 
170704 (D.D.C. Dec. 9, 2014).  Here’s a snippet:

    The plaintiff, James E. McMillan III, proceedingpro se, claims to be
    the “party head” of a political party that has appeared on the
    ballot in the State of New York in past elections for Governor and
    Mayor of New York City. Compl. at 1, Ex. B, ECF No. 1-1.He initiated
    thislawsuitagainst the District of Columbia Board of Elections (“the
    Board”), requesting a change in the name of a slate of affiliated
    candidates (the “Slate”) for election to the District of Columbia’s
    Democratic Party committee even though that election occurred over
    two months before the filing of the Complaint. The Board has moved
    to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff
    lacksstandingand, alternatively, fails to state a claim upon which
    relief may be granted.SeeDef.’s Mot to Dismiss at 1, ECF No. 6.1Link
    to the text of the note
    <https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=ed27e784-5fbe-4b8e-9f95-f2aee8d050ae&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=6422&pdteaserkey=sr0&ecomp=f8-g&earg=sr0&prid=f08b93ab-ee37-4101-880d-819143f1affd#>For
    the reasons set forth below, the Board’s motion to dismiss is granted.

    I. BACKGROUND

    The facts in this case are not in material dispute. The Board is in
    charge of administering elections of “members and officials of local
    committees of political parties.”D.C. Code § 1-1001.01(4)
    <https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=ed27e784-5fbe-4b8e-9f95-f2aee8d050ae&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=6422&pdteaserkey=sr0&ecomp=f8-g&earg=sr0&prid=f08b93ab-ee37-4101-880d-819143f1affd#>.
    On November 18, 2013, the local committee of the D.C. Democratic
    Party, pursuant toD.C. Code Ann. § 1-1001.10(a)(1)
    <https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=ed27e784-5fbe-4b8e-9f95-f2aee8d050ae&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=6422&pdteaserkey=sr0&ecomp=f8-g&earg=sr0&prid=f08b93ab-ee37-4101-880d-819143f1affd#>,
    issued a party plan for the April 2014 primary election that
    provided for the selection of Democratic Party committee members by
    slate. Def’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss (“Def.’s Mem.”) at 3, ECF No.
    6-1. A slate enables candidates to affiliate with one another by
    running on a common platform if the group of candidates secures a
    requisite number of signatures and meets other minimum
    requirements.See3 DCMR § 1701.

    The Slate at issue initially chose the name “DC for Progress, Raise
    the Wage.” Def.’s Mem. at 3. After being informed that the name was
    too long to print on the ballot, the Slate approached the plaintiff,
    who apparently leads the “Rent is Too Damn High” party in New York,
    and requested to use the [3] name in the D.C. Democratic Party
    committee election. Compl. at 1. The Director of the D.C. Board of
    Elections expressed concern that people, specifically seniors, might
    be upset with the D.C. Slate’s chosen name. Compl., Ex. A., ECF No.
    1-1. The Slate thereafter agreed to change the name of the Slate to
    the “Rent is Too Darn High.”Id.

    According to the Complaint, thirty candidates ran under the “Rent is
    Too Darn High” Slate name in the April 1, 2014 election for seats on
    the Democratic Party committee in the District of Columbia and five
    were elected. Compl. at 2. Over two months after the election, the
    plaintiff filed thislawsuitseeking, among other things, to change
    the Slate’s name to the “Rent is Too Damn High.”Id. at 3….

    III. DISCUSSION

    In this case, the plaintiff’s Complaint references the “First
    Amendment’s
    <https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=ed27e784-5fbe-4b8e-9f95-f2aee8d050ae&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=6422&pdteaserkey=sr0&ecomp=f8-g&earg=sr0&prid=f08b93ab-ee37-4101-880d-819143f1affd#>Free
    Speech andEstablishment Clauses
    <https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=ed27e784-5fbe-4b8e-9f95-f2aee8d050ae&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=6422&pdteaserkey=sr0&ecomp=f8-g&earg=sr0&prid=f08b93ab-ee37-4101-880d-819143f1affd#>”
    and goes on to allege that the “candidates have been denied the
    right to use the name of ‘TheRent is Too DAMN High,'” as the name of
    their Slate. Compl. at 1. The plaintiff “request[s] the word ‘Damn’
    [be] granted to the DC Group Slate” and “the DC Group Slate name be
    changed to indicate their name of choice (TheRent is Too Damn High)
    on the Board of Elections in (D.C.).”Id. at 3. The Board contends
    that the plaintiff lacksstandingto pursue this claim. Def.’s Mem. at
    5-7. The Court agrees.

    HN2
    <https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=ed27e784-5fbe-4b8e-9f95-f2aee8d050ae&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=6422&pdteaserkey=sr0&ecomp=f8-g&earg=sr0&prid=f08b93ab-ee37-4101-880d-819143f1affd#>Article
    III of the Constitution restricts the power [5] of federal courts to
    hear only “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. CONST. art. III § 2.“The
    doctrine ofstandinggives meaning to these constitutional limits by
    ‘identify[ing] those disputes which are appropriately resolved
    through the judicial process.'”Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus,
    134 S. Ct. 2334, 2341, 189 L. Ed. 2d 246 (2014)
    <https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=ed27e784-5fbe-4b8e-9f95-f2aee8d050ae&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=6422&pdteaserkey=sr0&ecomp=f8-g&earg=sr0&prid=f08b93ab-ee37-4101-880d-819143f1affd#>(alterations
    in original) (quotingLujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,
    560, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992))
    <https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=ed27e784-5fbe-4b8e-9f95-f2aee8d050ae&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=6422&pdteaserkey=sr0&ecomp=f8-g&earg=sr0&prid=f08b93ab-ee37-4101-880d-819143f1affd#>.
    The Supreme Court has explained, “the irreducible constitutional
    minimum ofstandingcontains three elements.”Defenders of Wildlife,
    504 U.S. at 560
    <https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=ed27e784-5fbe-4b8e-9f95-f2aee8d050ae&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=6422&pdteaserkey=sr0&ecomp=f8-g&earg=sr0&prid=f08b93ab-ee37-4101-880d-819143f1affd#>.The
    three-prongedstandingtest consists of the following: First, the
    plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact,” i.e., “an invasion
    of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and
    particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or
    hypothetical.”Id
    <https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=ed27e784-5fbe-4b8e-9f95-f2aee8d050ae&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=6422&pdteaserkey=sr0&ecomp=f8-g&earg=sr0&prid=f08b93ab-ee37-4101-880d-819143f1affd#>.
    (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).Second, there must
    be “a causal connection between the injury and the conduct
    complained of,” i.e., the injury alleged must be fairly traceable to
    the challenged action of the Board.Id. Finally, it must be likely
    that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.Id. at 561
    <https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=ed27e784-5fbe-4b8e-9f95-f2aee8d050ae&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=6422&pdteaserkey=sr0&ecomp=f8-g&earg=sr0&prid=f08b93ab-ee37-4101-880d-819143f1affd#>.When
    declaratory or injunctive relief is sought, a plaintiff “must show
    he is suffering an ongoing injury or faces an immediate threat of
    [future] injury.”Dearth v. Holder, 641 F.3d 499, 501, 395 U.S. App.
    D.C. 133 (D.C. Cir. 2011)
    <https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=ed27e784-5fbe-4b8e-9f95-f2aee8d050ae&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=6422&pdteaserkey=sr0&ecomp=f8-g&earg=sr0&prid=f08b93ab-ee37-4101-880d-819143f1affd#>(citingCity
    of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 105, 103 S. Ct. 1660, 75 L.
    Ed. 2d 675 (1983))
    <https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=ed27e784-5fbe-4b8e-9f95-f2aee8d050ae&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=6422&pdteaserkey=sr0&ecomp=f8-g&earg=sr0&prid=f08b93ab-ee37-4101-880d-819143f1affd#>.The
    plaintiff fails to meet any element of this three-pronged [6]
    standingtest.

    First, the plaintiff has not suffered an injury in fact. The
    plaintiff concedes: (1) he is “not a resident of the District of
    Columbia,” Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (“Pl.’s Opp’n”) at
    1; (2) he “did not attempt to register” to vote in the election for
    which he seeks the Slate’s name change,id.; and (3) he was not among
    the thirty-members of the Slate that ran for election,id. at
    2.Accordingly, the plaintiff has not suffered a legally cognizable
    injury in fact because he is a non-resident who did not participate
    in the election and, thus, he was not precluded from running under
    the slate name of his choice nor was he impacted by the election or
    its results.SeeDef.’s Mem. at 6 (“The instant case presents
    astandingissue where a nonresident asserts an injury to a political
    party slate of which he is not a member.”);see alsoSierra Club v.
    Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 735, 92 S. Ct. 1361, 31 L. Ed. 2d 636 (1972)
    <https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=ed27e784-5fbe-4b8e-9f95-f2aee8d050ae&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=6422&pdteaserkey=sr0&ecomp=f8-g&earg=sr0&prid=f08b93ab-ee37-4101-880d-819143f1affd#>(“HN3
    <https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=ed27e784-5fbe-4b8e-9f95-f2aee8d050ae&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=6422&pdteaserkey=sr0&ecomp=f8-g&earg=sr0&prid=f08b93ab-ee37-4101-880d-819143f1affd#>[T]he
    ‘injury in fact’ test requires more than an injury to a cognizable
    interest.It requires that the party seeking review be himself among
    the injured.”);Bd. of Elections for D.C. v. Democratic Cent. Comm.,
    300 A.2d 725, 727 (D.C. 1973)
    <https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=ed27e784-5fbe-4b8e-9f95-f2aee8d050ae&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=6422&pdteaserkey=sr0&ecomp=f8-g&earg=sr0&prid=f08b93ab-ee37-4101-880d-819143f1affd#>(same).2Link
    to the text of the note
    <https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=ed27e784-5fbe-4b8e-9f95-f2aee8d050ae&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A5DT5-3FS1-F04C-Y325-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=6422&pdteaserkey=sr0&ecomp=f8-g&earg=sr0&prid=f08b93ab-ee37-4101-880d-819143f1affd#>

    Despite conceding that he was not a candidate or registered voter in
    the 2014 D.C. Democratic Party election, the plaintiff insists that
    he hasstandingto bring this claim. In a convoluted series of
    statements, the plaintiff asserts that he “represent[s] the
    contingenticy [sic] of the ‘Rent is Too Damn HighParty’ in the
    District of Columbia and the party’s slate for the 30 candidates
    (members)” that did run in the election and also “provide[s]
    leadership and direction . . . as the leader of theRent is Too Damn
    HighParty.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 1-2. As the Board correctly points out,
    the plaintiff “has [8] conflated permission to use his party’s name
    with having a political party contingent in the District of
    Columbia.” Def.’s Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss (“Def.’s Reply”)
    at 1, ECF No. 9. The plaintiff “has proffered no evidence that the
    Democratic Party slate at issue intended to be a contingent of his
    political party.”Id. Indeed, the fact that the Slate felt the need
    to ask the plaintiff if it could use the name weighs against the
    contention that the Slate had any ongoing affiliation with the
    plaintiff and his political party in New York.

    Without an injury, the plaintiff has nostandingto pursue the instant
    matter. In any event, the plaintiff could not satisfy the remaining
    two-prongs of thestandingtest. The Slate agreed to change their name
    to the “Rent is Too Darn High,” thereby severing any causation
    between the plaintiff’s perceived injury and the Board’s suggestion
    that the Slate forego using the plaintiff’s party’s name.SeeCompl.,
    Ex. A.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74549&title=%E2%80%9CRent%20is%20Too%20___%20High%E2%80%9D%20Party&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


    “D.N.C. Lifts Ban on Convention Fund-Raising”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74547>

Posted onJuly 23, 2015 3:15 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74547>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Maggie 
Haberman<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/23/d-n-c-lifts-ban-on-convention-fund-raising/?_r=0>for 
the NYT:

    The Democratic National Committee will lift its ban on donations
    from political action committees and lobbyists for it convention
    fund-raising and for the accounts it shares with presidential
    campaigns, highlighting the coming shift within the party as it
    moves from being led by an incumbent president to its next nominee.

    The committee’s current policies, put in place by President Obama’s
    team when he was the nominee in 2008, reflected his desire to change
    the culture of Washington. Under those rules, the party committee
    could not accept money from PACs or lobbyists, even so-called
    leadership PACs of major elected officials….

    Allowing PAC and lobbyist donations to the joint fund-raising
    committee was something that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign
    encouraged, people briefed on the discussions said. Mrs. Clinton has
    spoken openly about her frustration with the way that Jeb Bush, one
    of her Republican rivals, raised funds for his so-called super PAC
    by delaying his formal campaign declaration, even as he toured the
    country as an all-but-official contender.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74547&title=%E2%80%9CD.N.C.%20Lifts%20Ban%20on%20Convention%20Fund-Raising%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


    “Federal judge rules in favor of city in Greensboro redistricting
    lawsuit” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74544>

Posted onJuly 23, 2015 3:13 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74544>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Details to come. 
<http://myfox8.com/2015/07/23/federal-judge-to-hear-arguments-in-greensboro-redistricting-lawsuit/> From 
the earlier story:

    The lawsuit calls the move by state lawmakers arbitrary,
    discriminatory and “tainted with bad faith.” Plaintiffs say the
    legislation strips the city council and its residents of a voice in
    how they run the local government. They also claim the new districts
    overpopulate minority districts and pit all four African-American
    city council incumbents against each other.

    The plaintiffs argue the law is unconstitutional, violating the 14th
    amendment of the North Carolina constitution, which guarantees equal
    protection under the law. They also say the “hastily passed
    Greensboro Act” denies citizens the right to petition and initiate a
    referendum.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74544&title=%E2%80%9CFederal%20judge%20rules%20in%20favor%20of%20city%20in%20Greensboro%20redistricting%20lawsuit%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>


    Are Political 501c4s Holding Back on Attacking Hillary Clinton to
    Avoid Jeopardizing Their Status? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74542>

Posted onJuly 23, 2015 2:36 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74542>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Interesting Politico report. 
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-gets-free-pass-from-some-gop-non-profits-119977.html>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74542&title=Are%20Political%20501c4s%20Holding%20Back%20on%20Attacking%20Hillary%20Clinton%20to%20Avoid%20Jeopardizing%20Their%20Status%3F&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,tax law 
and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>


    “The Wisconsin Targets Tell Their Story”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74540>

Posted onJuly 23, 2015 12:25 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74540>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

….and they do once again to theWSJ editorial page 
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-wisconsin-targets-tell-their-story-1437608811>.

Not only would I like to see the claims vetted more widely by a less 
ideological group of journalists (or at least a more diverse group of 
journalists), I’m still waiting to see evidence that (1) the tactics 
used here were more intrusive than those used with the investigation of 
other white collar criminals and (2) worse tactics were used because of 
the targeting of political opponents.

I don’t see either of those things in the WSJ ed. piece.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74540&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Wisconsin%20Targets%20Tell%20Their%20Story%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inchicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


    12 Campaign Finance Reform Groups Release Reform Agenda for Next
    President <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74538>

Posted onJuly 23, 2015 11:32 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74538>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Fighting Big Money, Empowering People: A 21st Century Democracy Agenda 
<http://www.commoncause.org/issues/money-in-politics/21st-century-democracy-agenda/fighting-big-money-empowering-people-a-21st-century-democracy-agenda.pdf>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74538&title=12%20Campaign%20Finance%20Reform%20Groups%20Release%20Reform%20Agenda%20for%20Next%20President&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


    “Knight Foundation announces winners of News Challenge; $3.2M
    awarded for better ideas to inform voters, civic participation”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74536>

Posted onJuly 23, 2015 11:31 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74536>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

That’s the lead story in this week’sElectionline Weekly 
<http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly>.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74536&title=%E2%80%9CKnight%20Foundation%20announces%20winners%20of%20News%20Challenge%3B%20%243.2M%20awarded%20for%20better%20ideas%20to%20inform%20voters%2C%20civic%20participation%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


    “Rutgers professor testifies in federal [trial] that voter fraud is
    rare” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74533>

Posted onJuly 23, 2015 11:27 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74533>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Lori Minnite testifies 
<http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/rutgers-professor-testifies-in-federal-that-voter-fraud-is-rare/article_0b6085bc-3162-11e5-9f21-7b673935e3fd.html>in 
NC voting trial.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74533&title=%E2%80%9CRutgers%20professor%20testifies%20in%20federal%20%5Btrial%5D%20that%20voter%20fraud%20is%20rare%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
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/20150723/c1a3bc84/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/20150723/c1a3bc84/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IconFootnoteDown.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1055 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150723/c1a3bc84/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IconNavigateUp.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1047 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150723/c1a3bc84/attachment-0002.png>