[EL] ELB News and Commentary 7/30/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Thu Jul 30 07:25:56 PDT 2015
“Federal voting rights trial expected to end today”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74710>
Posted onJuly 30, 2015 7:19 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74710>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Winston-Salem Journal
<http://www.journalnow.com/news/federal-voting-rights-trial-expected-to-end-today/article_4aa3da94-36c1-11e5-a591-13c3cb1f8eaf.html>(which
commendably has been covering every day of the trial):
After nearly three weeks, a federal trial on North Carolina’s
election law is wrapping up, with closing arguments to begin either
late this morning or early afternoon.
The trial has been closely watched in North Carolina and nationally.
Critics have described House Bill 589 as the most sweeping change in
election laws since the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2013 invalidated
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 5 required 40
counties in North Carolina and several other states to seek federal
approval for election law changes. House Bill 589 was signed into
law a little more than a month after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74710&title=%E2%80%9CFederal%20voting%20rights%20trial%20expected%20to%20end%20today%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>
“Symposium: Misguided hysteria over Evenwel v. Abbott”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74708>
Posted onJuly 30, 2015 7:17 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74708>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Rick Pildes
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/07/symposium-misguided-hysteria-over-evenwel-v-abbott/>on
Evenwel at SCOTUSBlog.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74708&title=%E2%80%9CSymposium%3A%20Misguided%20hysteria%20over%20Evenwel%20v.%20Abbott%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,voting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
Justice Ginsburg Speaks on Citizens United, Arizona Redistricting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74706>
Posted onJuly 30, 2015 7:15 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74706>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Justice spoke at Duke. She said this about Citizens United (viaAdam
Liptak
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/30/today-in-politics-polls-keep-bolstering-a-trump-seemingly-impervious-to-scrubbing/?_r=0#post-mb-5>):
The court’s worst blunder, she said, was its 2010 decision in
Citizens United “because of what has happened to elections in the
United States and the huge amount of money it takes to run for office.”
And she said this about the recent Arizona redistricting decision
(viaHuffPo
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ruth-bader-ginsburg-tk_55b97c68e4b0b8499b18536b>):
The words in the Arizona case were “the legislature thereof.” What
were the Founding Fathers thinking about? They were thinking about
who had a legislative function. There was no such thing in those
days as the initiative or referendum, those developed later, but
those are lawmaking functions, so I think it was entirely reasonable
to read the Constitution to accommodate whatever means of lawmaking
the state had adopted, rather than say, “No, the only way you could
make law that counts for this purpose is by the legislature
thereof.” We can’t know for sure because we have no way of convening
with the Founding Fathers, but I think if they knew of the existence
of the people’s vote through the initiative or referenda, they would
have said, “That’s lawmaking.” What we had in mind is who makes the
law for the state. Otherwise you’d freeze things as they existed, it
would allow no room for affirmative development, no room for the
voice of the people, which is what the initiative did.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74706&title=Justice%20Ginsburg%20Speaks%20on%20Citizens%20United%2C%20Arizona%20Redistricting&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Elections
Clause <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>,redistricting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Maryland Democratic Senate Primary Erupts Over Citizens United”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74704>
Posted onJuly 30, 2015 7:08 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74704>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Paul Blumenthal reports
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/maryland-senate-campaign-finance_55b812eae4b0074ba5a6b83e>for
HuffPo.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74704&title=%E2%80%9CMaryland%20Democratic%20Senate%20Primary%20Erupts%20Over%20Citizens%20United%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“‘Dark money': ALEC wants image makeover”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74702>
Posted onJuly 30, 2015 7:07 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74702>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politico reports.
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/alec-koch-brothers-dark-money-anonymous-donation-120784.html>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74702&title=%E2%80%9C%E2%80%98Dark%20money%27%3A%20ALEC%20wants%20image%20makeover%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“FVAP Releases 2014 Post-Election Report To Congress”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74700>
Posted onJuly 30, 2015 7:02 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74700>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
A ChapinBlog.
<http://editions.lib.umn.edu/electionacademy/2015/07/30/fvap-releases-2014-post-election-report-to-congress/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74700&title=%E2%80%9CFVAP%20Releases%202014%20Post-Election%20Report%20To%20Congress%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,military voting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=48>
“Billionaire Donors Bypass K Street”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74698>
Posted onJuly 29, 2015 4:46 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74698>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Roll Call reports.
<http://www.rollcall.com/news/billionaire_donors_bypass_k_street-243086-1.html>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74698&title=%E2%80%9CBillionaire%20Donors%20Bypass%20K%20Street%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,lobbying
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
“Judge threatens IRS chief with contempt”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74696>
Posted onJuly 29, 2015 4:39 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74696>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
McClatchy
<http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article29422690.html>:
A federal judge has threatened to hold the commissioner of the
Internal Revenue Service in contempt of court.
The threat came Wednesday from U.S. District Court Judge Emmet
Sullivan, who has been presiding over a lawsuit by the conservative
group Judicial Watch and its request that the Internal Revenue
Service release the emails of Lois Lerner. She headed the IRS’s
Exempt Organizations division.
Sullivan ordered a status hearing Wednesday after Judicial Watch
complained his earlier orders were not being followed by the Justice
Department, which is defending the IRS.
Read more here:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article29422690.html#storylink=cpy
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74696&title=%E2%80%9CJudge%20threatens%20IRS%20chief%20with%20contempt%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,tax law
and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
“Fattah Buttonholed Obama Directly, According to Indictment”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74694>
Posted onJuly 29, 2015 4:19 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74694>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Roll Call:
<http://blogs.rollcall.com/white-house/chaka-fattah-case-connects-to-white-house/>
The Department of Justice’s indictment of Rep.Chaka Fattah
<http://www.rollcall.com/members/409.html> alleges Fattah’s
quid-pro-quo scheme included an in-person effort to get President
Barack Obama to give a lobbyist an ambassadorship.
Fattah, a powerful Pennsylvania Democrat, is a longtime ally of the
president’s and a frequent visitor to the White House.
But according to the indictment, Fattah abused his relationship with
the president and his staff and tried to get the lobbyist a
nomination, first as an ambassador and later as a member of “a
federal trade commission.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74694&title=%E2%80%9CFattah%20Buttonholed%20Obama%20Directly%2C%20According%20to%20Indictment%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inbribery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>,chicanery
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
ABA Law Blawg 100 Nominations Now Open
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74692>
Posted onJuly 29, 2015 3:54 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74692>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Nominate your favorite law blogat this link.
<http://www.abajournal.com/blawgs/blawg100_submit/>
(Aug. 16 deadline.)
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74692&title=ABA%20Law%20Blawg%20100%20Nominations%20Now%20Open&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“The Fight for American Voting Rights: Inside Ari Berman’s New Book”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74690>
Posted onJuly 29, 2015 3:41 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74690>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Rolling Stone interview.
<http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-fight-for-american-voting-rights-inside-ari-bermans-new-book-20150729>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74690&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Fight%20for%20American%20Voting%20Rights%3A%20Inside%20Ari%20Berman%E2%80%99s%20New%20Book%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inThe Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“State elections director: 31 cases of alleged voter fraud referred
to county prosecutors” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74688>
Posted onJuly 29, 2015 1:00 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74688>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The latest
<http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/state-elections-director-cases-of-alleged-voter-fraud-referred-to/article_e55e598e-361b-11e5-8184-e3f7df261e9d.html>from
the NC voting trial.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74688&title=%E2%80%9CState%20elections%20director%3A%2031%20cases%20of%20alleged%20voter%20fraud%20referred%20to%20county%20prosecutors%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>
“Inside the Koch network’s plan to create a permanent ground force”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74686>
Posted onJuly 29, 2015 12:57 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74686>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Matea Gold
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-koch-networks-plan-to-create-a-permanent-ground-force/2015/07/29/712eb650-35ec-11e5-b673-1df005a0fb28_story.html?postshare=8551438198971703>for
WaPo.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74686&title=%E2%80%9CInside%20the%20Koch%20network%E2%80%99s%20plan%20to%20create%20a%20permanent%20ground%20force%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
An Academic Elegy <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74682>
Posted onJuly 29, 2015 10:53 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74682>byHeather Gerken
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=6>
Guy-Urïel Charles and Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, have anew piece
<http://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/files/ilr.law.uiowa.edu/files/Gerken.pdf>in
the Iowa Law Review. I offered a commentary,here
<http://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/files/ilr.law.uiowa.edu/files/Gerken.pdf>.
Just to give you a flavor for the piece is, here’s a brief excerpt from
my introduction, which offers a rough summary of their argument:
/It feels like a moment. I know I’m supposed to analyze this piece from
a purely academic perspective, but first I want to mark the occasion.
Guy-Urïel Charles and Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, two of the most astute
commentators on the intersection of election law and civil rights, think
it’s time to give up on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”),
perhaps it’s even time to give up on the civil-rights paradigm
altogether. When I assigned this paper to my class, one of the students
said that she realized it’s time for her to start mourning the Voting
Rights Act because it’s never coming back./
/For me
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/supreme_court_and_the_voting_rights_act_goodbye_to_section_5.html>,
the mourning process began when Shelby County v. Holder came down. But
until I’d read “The Voting Rights Act in Winter: The Death of a
Superstatute,” I’d been a naïve cynic (or a cynical naïf). I’d hoped
that I wasn’t being hopeful enough. But when the always-wise and
ever-optimistic Guy Charles—the academic whoinsisted
<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/005622.html>in 2006 that the
civil-rights community should reject the renewal act and try for
better—tells us that something’s over, it’s probably over. When the duo
that valiantly tried to lay the groundwork for rebuilding Section 5
tells you it’s time to chart a different course, it’s probably time to
chart a different course./
/None of this will be easy to hear if you still subscribe to the
political consensus that animated the Voting Rights Act, if you believe
that Section 5 was the crown jewel of the VRA, if you think that we
still need an administrative alternative to costly litigation for
race-based voting claims. Now feels like an especially hard time to hear
that we must set aside the race-discrimination model given how large
Ferguson and Garner loom. Which is why it takes a certain kind of
courage to write what Charles and Fuentes-Rohwer have written here. If
you think it’s hard to hear these things, just imagine how hard it is to
write them, at least for people who haven’t spent their careers playing
the studied contrarian./
/Academic pieces are strange creatures, and they aren’t well suited for
elegies. Yet this feels like one to me. Academics are strange creatures
themselves. Perhaps, then, it’s not surprising that an elegy by two
scholars would come in the form this one does: the systematic,
clear-eyed, and relentless documenting of the death of a superstatute.
It feels like the scholarly equivalent of a doctor calling it when the
patient’s heart has stopped./
/Perhaps because this is an elegy wrapped in a piece of scholarship,
some readers will offer the conventional academic critique and say that
there are really two articles here. The first half of the Article charts
the death of a superstatute, and the second imagines a new future for
voting rights./
/At first glance, the two subjects seem unrelated. The first half enters
into a conversation (carried on mostly by my colleagues at Yale) about
what Ernie Young has called “the constitution outside the Constitution”
— those sturdy, stable programs and principles that constitute our
society even if they are not enshrined in our Constitution’s text. The
death of a superstatute is an understudied topic precisely because
superstatutes aren’t supposed to die. The second half of the Article,
meanwhile, continues a conversation that the field of election law had
been having ever since the oral argument in Northwest Austin Municipal
District No. 1 v. Holder (“NAMUDNO”), one that is more pragmatically
focused on identifying a framework for resolving elections claims. That
conversation is not nearly as wide-ranging or theoretically oriented as
the one on superstatutes. Election law scholars, after all, are trying
to come up with a regulatory scheme at the intersection of what Congress
can pass and what the Court can accept, and it may well be a null set.
These are different conversations, and it’s no wonder that the two
halves of the Article read so differently./
/While I have something to say about each part of the Article, I think
the two pieces are much more closely related than that. To be sure, the
effort to chart the death of a superstatute is interesting standing
alone and generates its own cache of insights, as I note below. But this
argument serves a larger purpose here: It reminds you how much work it
takes to maintain a superstatute in the first place. Those who resist
the premise of the second half of the Article—that it’s time to chart a
new course—must first grapple with the truths in the first half of the
Article. As the authors show, it was a huge lift to get three branches
of government to work in conjunction with one another to support Section
5. For those who think that all we need is a fifth vote on the Supreme
Court to restore Section 5 to her old glory, Charles and Fuentes-Rohwer
remind us just how many times the Court and Congress and the Executive
Branch had to bend over backwards not just to keep the old girl alive,
but to maintain Section 5 as a vibrant regulatory framework. This
analysis will be sobering to those who want to cast Shelby County simply
as a 5–4 ruling rather than part of a political sea change. Indeed, the
first half of the Article makes clear just how far these tides have
receded. While the two halves of the Article are quite different, then,
they plainly work in tandem and deepen the authors’ argument along
almost every dimension./
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74682&title=An%20Academic%20Elegy&description=>
Posted inDepartment of Justice
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>,election administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,election law and constitutional law
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=55>,guest blogging election law
scholarship <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=64>,Uncategorized
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> |TaggedSection 5
<http://electionlawblog.org/?tag=section-5>,super statute
<http://electionlawblog.org/?tag=super-statute>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?tag=voting-rights-act>
“Internet Voting: Creeping Our Way?”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74680>
Posted onJuly 29, 2015 8:17 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74680>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
That’s the lead story in the latest NCSL’sThe Canvass.
<http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/states-and-election-reform-the-canvass-july-2015.aspx>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74680&title=%E2%80%9CInternet%20Voting%3A%20Creeping%20Our%20Way%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,internet voting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=49>
“The Perversion of the American Presidency”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74678>
Posted onJuly 29, 2015 8:15 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74678>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Fred Wertheimer writes
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-wertheimer/the-perversion-of-the-ame_b_7890330.html>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74678&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Perversion%20of%20the%20American%20Presidency%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Va. Republicans reject McAuliffe’s request for redistricting
meeting” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74676>
Posted onJuly 29, 2015 8:15 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74676>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/va-republicans-reject-mcauliffes-request-for-redistricting-meeting/2015/07/28/d7bec32c-3571-11e5-8e66-07b4603ec92a_story.html?postshare=131438182684126>:
Republican leaders of Virginia General Assembly on Tuesday rebuffed
an effort by Gov. Terry McAuliffe to strike a deal on the state’s
congressional elections map before a court-imposed deadline.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74676&title=%E2%80%9CVa.%20Republicans%20reject%20McAuliffe%E2%80%99s%20request%20for%20redistricting%20meeting%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
--
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/20150730/908a0e3b/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/20150730/908a0e3b/attachment.png>
View list directory