[EL] West Virginia Commission

Sat Jul 25 14:35:29 PDT 2015

I don’t always agree with Professor Samples, but Rick is completely correct that, on any objective standard, James Samples has done a lot of important and thorough work on judicial ethics, probably as much or more than any other commentator or academic in this country. He’s always been thoughtful and fair in his writings and in my interactions with him. The body of work and professional reputation he has accumulated over the years will quickly overshadow the Commission’s unusual and seemingly unnecessary conclusions, as Rick points out.

Bill

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 9:33 PM
To: law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 7/25/14

“Plaintiffs rest case in federal voting rights trial; state attorneys call first witness”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74587>
Posted on July 24, 2015 9:27 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74587> by Rick 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 in election 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 on July 24, 2015 5:44 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74584> by Rick 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 opinion at this link <http://www.courtswv.gov/public-resources/press/releases/2015-releases/july21_15.pdf> (via How 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 in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“One of Two Charges Against Rick Perry Is Dismissed”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74582>
Posted on July 24, 2015 5:38 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74582> by Rick 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 was indicted 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 Richardson wrote 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 in bribery<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 on July 24, 2015 5:34 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74580> by Rick 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 in campaign 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 on July 24, 2015 5:33 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74578> by Rick 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%>
Posted in campaign 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 on July 24, 2015 5:29 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74576> by Rick 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 this cert 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 in ballot 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 on July 24, 2015 5:26 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74574> by Rick 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 Stengel issued 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>
Posted in ballot access<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>
Empower Small Donors: Allow Coordination From Only a Contributor’s First $200<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74563>
Posted on July 24, 2015 12:27 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74563> by Spencer 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 it here<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 in Uncategorized<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<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>

http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/

http://electionlawblog.org

________________________________

Spam<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09OUsy6cv&m=15c9657c8c5c&t=20150725&c=s>
Phish/Fraud<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09OUsy6cv&m=15c9657c8c5c&t=20150725&c=p>
Not spam<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09OUsy6cv&m=15c9657c8c5c&t=20150725&c=n>
Forget previous vote<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09OUsy6cv&m=15c9657c8c5c&t=20150725&c=f>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150725/a07b03d5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150725/a07b03d5/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 46150 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150725/a07b03d5/attachment-0001.png>