[EL] ELB News and Commentary 7/25/14
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Fri Jul 24 21:33:00 PDT 2015
“Plaintiffs rest case in federal voting rights trial; state
attorneys call first witness” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74587>
Posted onJuly 24, 2015 9:27 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74587>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The latest f
<http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/expert-n-c-s-election-law-fits-historical-pattern-in/article_7f1902be-3229-11e5-a67c-d7b52d50ec1f.html>rom
the NC voting trial.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74587&title=%E2%80%9CPlaintiffs%20rest%20case%20in%20federal%20voting%20rights%20trial%3B%20state%20attorneys%20call%20first%20witness%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>
“West Virginia Judicial Commission Clears Top Justice in Ethics
Matter” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74584>
Posted onJuly 24, 2015 5:44 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74584>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
ABC News
<http://abcnews.go.com/US/west-virginia-judicial-commission-clears-top-justice-ethics/story?id=32599967>:
The West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission has issued an
ethics opinion clearing state Supreme Court Justice Robin Davis of
wrongdoing in response to an ethics complaint filed earlier this
year regarding the justice’s failure in 2012 to disclose a $1
million jet airplane deal between her husband and an attorney
appearing before her….
Further, the opinion said the ethics complaint was based on
“unprincipled allegations made by those involved in creating the
so-called ABC News story.”
“The commission does not accept as proof allegations made in the
mass media,” Wilson wrote.
The commission also included criticism of Hofstra University Law
Prof. James Sample, though not by name, instead referring to him as
an “expert” in quotation marks. Sample appeared in the ABC News
report, and said he felt Davis had not fulfilled her obligation to
disclose the private business transaction.
Reached Wednesday, Sample said he did not want to get into a war of
words with the commission. But he did defend his credentials as a
recognized expert who has published numerous papers and spoken
widely on judicial ethics. Widely-known judicial expert Richard
Hasen, a Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of
California, Irvine, recently referred to Sample as the author of
“some of today’s most important work on judicial elections and
judicial recusal” in the country.
“My credentials are quite well established,” Sample said.
“If they didn’t see a conflict in this situation, I’d look at where
their oversight comes from,” Sample said, noting that the
commission’s nine members are all appointed by the West Virginia
Supreme Court.
You can read the sycophantic opinionat this
link<http://www.courtswv.gov/public-resources/press/releases/2015-releases/july21_15.pdf>(viaHow
Appealing <http://howappealing.abovethelaw.com/072415.html#063032>).
Here’s my favorite part:
Screen Shot 2015-07-24 at 5.43.30 PM
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2015-07-24-at-5.43.30-PM.png>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74584&title=%E2%80%9CWest%20Virginia%20Judicial%20Commission%20Clears%20Top%20Justice%20in%20Ethics%20Matter%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“One of Two Charges Against Rick Perry Is Dismissed”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74582>
Posted onJuly 24, 2015 5:38 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74582>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/24/one-of-two-charges-against-rick-perry-is-dismissed/?smid=nytcore-iphone-share&smprod=nytcore-iphone>:
Former Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, who is seeking the Republican
nomination for president, received some good news regarding his
legal problems on Friday when an appeals court in his state dropped
one of the two felony charges he is facing.
Mr. Perry wasindicted last summer
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/us/gov-rick-perry-of-texas-is-indicted-over-veto-of-funds-for-das-office.html>on
criminal charges of abuse of power and coercion of a public servant.
The case surrounds an episode during which Mr. Perry was accused of
trying to use his powers as governor to make an elected official
step down after being charged with drunken driving.
The case has been a nuisance for Mr. Perry as he looks to gain
traction in a crowded field of Republicans seeking the party’s
presidential nomination.
On Friday, the Austin court dismissed the coercion of a public
servant charge against Mr. Perry on the grounds that violates his
right to free speech under the First Amendment.
“Because the First Amendment bars enforcement of the statute on
which the “coercion of a public servant” charge is based, that
charge must be dismissed,” Judge Bert Richardsonwrote in an opinion
<http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=e385810b-5d3a-4854-875e-14bd7481f6e9&coa=coa03&DT=Opinion&MediaID=de43bcf9-2702-4739-8b8c-10876522022b>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74582&title=%E2%80%9COne%20of%20Two%20Charges%20Against%20Rick%20Perry%20Is%20Dismissed%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inbribery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,chicanery
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
“FEC Won’t Investigate Employer-Mandated Campaign Rally”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74580>
Posted onJuly 24, 2015 5:34 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74580>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bloomberg BNA breaking news via email:”The Federal Election Commission
deadlocked on whether to investigate charges that Ohio mining company
Murray Energy violated campaign finance rules by requiring employees and
their families attend a 2012 rally for Republican presidential candidate
Mitt Romney, according to FEC documents released today.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74580&title=%E2%80%9CFEC%20Won%E2%80%99t%20Investigate%20Employer-Mandated%20Campaign%20Rally%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,federal
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>
“Where Candidates Stash Their Cash; Republican presidential
candidates love to park their campaign money at a Virginia bank with
one branch.” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74578>
Posted onJuly 24, 2015 5:33 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74578>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bloomberg reports.
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-22/where-candidates-stash-their-cash>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74578&title=%E2%80%9CWhere%20Candidates%20Stash%20Their%20Cash%3B%20Republican%20presidential%20candidates%20love%20to%20park%20their%20campaign%20money%20at%20a%20Virginia%20bank%20with%20one%20branch.%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“California Minor Parties Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Case
Against Top-Two System” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74576>
Posted onJuly 24, 2015 5:29 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74576>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
BAN reports
<http://ballot-access.org/2015/07/24/california-minor-parties-ask-u-s-supreme-court-to-hear-case-against-top-two-system/>on
thiscert petition.
<http://ballot-access.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Rubin-last-stand.pdf>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74576&title=%E2%80%9CCalifornia%20Minor%20Parties%20Ask%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20to%20Hear%20Case%20Against%20Top-Two%20System%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>,political
parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,primaries
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>,third parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=47>
"U.S. District Court Rules Pennsylvania System of Imposing Costs on
Minor Party Petitions that Lack Sufficient Signatures is
Unconstitutional” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74574>
Posted onJuly 24, 2015 5:26 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74574>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
BAN
<http://ballot-access.org/2015/07/24/u-s-district-court-holds-pennsylvania-system-of-imposing-costs-on-minor-party-petitions-that-lack-sufficient-signatures-is-unconstitutional/>:
On July 24, U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Stengelissued a
41-page opinion
<http://ballot-access.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Pennsylvania-victory-costs.pdf>in
Constitution Party of Pennsylvania v Cortes, e.d., 12-cv-2726. He
determined that Pennsylvania’s system of charging huge court costs
against petitioning candidates and groups violates the U.S.
Constitution, as applied to the minor parties who filed the lawsuit.
The three parties who filed the lawsuit are the Constitution, Green
and Libertarian Parties. UPDATE:see this newspaper story
<http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20150725_Judge__Pa__code_unfair_to_third-party_candidates.html>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74574&title=%E2%80%9D%20U.S.%20District%20Court%20Rules%20Pennsylvania%20System%20of%20Imposing%20Costs%20on%20Minor%20Party%20Petitions%20that%20Lack%20Sufficient%20Signatures%20is%20Unconstitutional%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>
Empower Small Donors: Allow Coordination From Only a Contributor’s
First $200 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74563>
Posted onJuly 24, 2015 12:27 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74563>bySpencer Overton
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=17>
As Rick Hasen noted <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74561>, Paul
Blumenthal reports for HuffPo that some in the U.S. Senate are
attempting to completely eliminate the limits on coordinated spending by
political parties on candidate campaigns.
This is a problem because it would give political parties, federal
elected officials, and federal candidates even greater incentives to
focus on the few megadonors who can afford to give a single contribution
of over $33,000 to a political party committee, and to pay less
attention to millions of average Americans.
*Instead, the law should be revised to allow unlimited coordinated
spending by a party on candidate elections, but only with money that
comes from the first $200 an individual contributes to the party per year. *
This proposal would allow parties to get more money to swing, contested
elections, which party leaders would say are being decided by money from
SuperPACs and other outside forces. In 2008, the six federal party
committees raised four times the amount from small donors than they
spent on coordinated expenditures. A relaxed coordination rule for the
first $200 contributed would increase the party’s ability to target this
money most effectively to support particular candidates in key races.
At the same time, the proposal would increase the importance of average
Americans in the political process. Both Republican and Democratic
party committees would have much greater incentives to focus on
obtaining contributions from working and middle-class Americans, since
this money could be targeted in a coordinated fashion with contested races.
The proposal would not be limited to contributions of $200 or less, but
would apply to the first $200 contributed by each individual. Thus,
megadonors would be less likely to successfully claim the law
“discriminates” against them (a possibility with the current Supreme
Court after an Arizona public financing case). Recognizing, however,
that there are many more people who can afford to give $200 (which could
be a recurring monthly gift of just over $16) or less, parties and
federal officials would have greater incentives to reach out and engage
the smaller donors. In other words, it is much easier to raise $2
million in coordinated funds for a contested race from 10,000 smaller
donors than from 10,000 megadonors. Further, because only the first
$200 of an individual’s contributions could be coordinated, the proposal
would not allow megadonors to funnel money through the party to
circumvent the lower candidate contribution limits.
I talk about this idea in my Georgetown Law Journal article “The
Participation Interest
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2174442>,” and
Michael Malbin develops a version of ithere
<http://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/14-12-08/CFI%E2%80%99s_Malbin_Calls_for_%E2%80%9CA_Third_Approach%E2%80%9D_to_Party_Coordination.aspx>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74563&title=Empower%20Small%20Donors%3A%20Allow%20Coordination%20From%20Only%20a%20Contributor%E2%80%99s%20First%20%24200&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
--
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/20150724/855e9ed4/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/20150724/855e9ed4/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screen-Shot-2015-07-24-at-5.43.30-PM-300x182.png
Type: image/png
Size: 46150 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150724/855e9ed4/attachment-0001.png>
View list directory