[EL] ELB News and Commentary 7/31/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Fri Jul 31 09:06:03 PDT 2015
Note: Heather Gerken's post <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74682> on the
Charles/Feuntes-Rohwer Iowa piece on the Voting Rights Act had the wrong
link to their piece. You can find it at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2377470.
“This is why the Voting Rights Act is on trial in North Carolina”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74765>
Posted onJuly 31, 2015 9:01 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74765>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I have written this post
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/07/31/this-is-why-the-voting-rights-act-is-on-trial-in-north-carolina/?postshare=1781438352128737>for
The Monkey Cage at WaPo. It begins:
In a Winston-Salem, N.C. federal courthouse,closing arguments
<http://www.twcnews.com/nc/triad/news/2015/07/30/closing-arguments-delayed-in-nc-elections-trial.html> are
taking place this morning in a hotly-contested trial overNorth
Carolina’s restrictive voting law
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/14/us/sides-dispute-basis-of-north-carolina-voting-laws-as-trial-contesting-them-opens.html>.
The U.S. Department of Justice and civil rights groups say thatthe
2013 law
<http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2013/Bills/House/PDF/H589v9.pdf>,
passed by a Republican legislature over the objections of Democrats,
violates the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. The state
defends its law as necessary to prevent voter fraud and keep public
confidence in the electoral process.
As the New York Timesexplained
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/14/us/sides-dispute-basis-of-north-carolina-voting-laws-as-trial-contesting-them-opens.html>,
“The contested measures reduced early voting days, ended same-day
registration, ended out-of-precinct voting and halted the
preregistration of 16- and 17-year-old high school students. These
measures had been adopted in the past 15 years to increase voter
participation and were disproportionately used by black, Hispanic
and younger voters.”
Since the Voting Rights Act passed 50 years ago — on Aug. 6, 1965 —
there have been many legal disputes over the extent of court
protection for minority voting. The outcome of this one, like many
cases before it, may depend upon how well murky law matches up with
political science evidence.
It concludes:
Judge Schroeder could well be faced with a situation where
plaintiffs have trouble proving the law will have a large
discriminatory effect on African-American voters, but also ample
evidence that North Carolina had no good reason antifraud or voter
confidence reason for passing this law. The law was probably
intended to help Republicans — who are overwhelmingly supported by
white voters and not African-Americans in North Carolina — stay in
office.
With this evidence and a murky legal standard, it is unclear what
Judge Schroeder will do, but he was skeptical of plaintiffs’ case at
an earlier stage of the case,denying a preliminary injunction
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=64152>against some of these practices.
Whatever Judge Schroeder decides, the North Carolina case could well
end up before the Supreme Court. And if the history of the Supreme
Court’s cases over 50 years of the Voting Rights Act is any guide,
the fate of North Carolina’s law may depend less upon the political
science evidence before the Court and more on the Justices’
ideological commitments and beliefs about the appropriate scope of
voting protections for minorities.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74765&title=%E2%80%9CThis%20is%20why%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20is%20on%20trial%20in%20North%20Carolina%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: Ideology, partisanship, and the new ‘one person, one
vote’ case” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74763>
Posted onJuly 31, 2015 8:59 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74763>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I have writtenthis contribution
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/07/symposium-ideology-partisanship-and-the-new-one-person-one-vote-case/>to
SCOTUSBlog’s symposium onEvenwel v. Abbott.
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/evenwel-v-abbott/?wpmp_switcher=desktop> It
begins:
It is tempting to think of the plaintiffs in/Evenwel v. Abbott/
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/evenwel-v-abbott/?wpmp_switcher=desktop>as
conservatives. After all, thebrainchild
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72739>behind this new “one person,
one vote” lawsuit,Ed Blum and his Project on Fair Representation
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/us/edward-blum-and-the-project-on-fair-representation-head-to-the-supreme-court-to-fight-race-based-laws.html>,
brought us the demise of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act in
the Supreme Court’s/Shelby County/
<https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/570/12-96/>/v.
Holder/case and continued attacks on affirmative action in thesecond
coming of the/Fisher/case
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/fisher-v-university-of-texas-at-austin-2/?wpmp_switcher=desktop>.
But the theory the/Evenwel/plaintiffs pursue is anything but
conservative: it is about taking power away from the states and
having the Supreme Court overturn precedent by imposing through
judicial fiat a one-size-fits-all version of democratic theory
unsupported by the text of the Constitution or historical
practice./Evenwel/should be seen for what it is: not a conservative
case but an attempted Republican power grab in Texas and other
jurisdictions with large Latino populations.
It concludes:
/Evenwel/is a case which should be equally disturbing for
conservatives and liberals. For conservatives, it is a case which
challenges existing precedent for no reason, undermines federalism
concerns, and goes against constitutional text, history and
practice. For liberals, the case looks like little more than a
Republican power grab, seeking to have the Court take away
discretion for states in an arena in which states should have some
leeway in deciding on the appropriate means of equal representation.
It forces states to draw districts under a court-mandated theory
that those without the vote, including children, felons, and
non-citizens, do not deserve representations in state legislatures.
This is the rare case where liberals and conservatives can unite
behind the state of Texas. Texashas properly asked
<http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/14-940-bio.pdf>the
Supreme Court to leave the “one person, one vote” question where it
has resided for almost fifty years: with the states.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74763&title=%E2%80%9CSymposium%3A%20Ideology%2C%20partisanship%2C%20and%20the%20new%20%E2%80%98one%20person%2C%20one%20vote%E2%80%99%20case%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Revealing @SeanTrende- at Dale_E_Ho Exchange in NC Voting Rights Trial
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74760>
Posted onJuly 31, 2015 8:57 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74760>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I excerpt it inthis post
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/07/31/this-is-why-the-voting-rights-act-is-on-trial-in-north-carolina/?postshare=1781438352128737>at
The Monkey Cage:
North Carolina passed its 2013 restrictive voting law just a month
after/Shelby/. So is the change connected to is history of race
discrimination? Real Clear Politics’ Sean Trende,testifying as an
expert
<http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/politics/expert-says-viva-made-north-carolina-s-voting-laws-mainstream/article/439587>political
analyst for North Carolina, noted that seven other states besides
North Carolina had no same-day registration, no out-of-precinct
voting, less than 17 days of early voting, no preregistration, and a
photo ID requirement—all five changes that were being challenged.
Many states lacked one, two or three of these voting rules. But only
eight states lacked all five. That testimony led to a very
interesting exchange withACLU lawyer Dale Ho,
<https://www.aclu.org/bio/dale-ho>representing the plaintiffs, on
cross-examination:
Ho: Could you read those eight states into the record, please?
Trende: Alabama, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
Ho: Now, according to your opinion in this case, these eight states
are in the mainstream; correct, Mr. Trende?
Trende: With respect to the voting practices at issue in this case, yes.
Ho: Now, it is true, is it not, Mr. Trende, that all eight of these
states, with the exception of Tennessee, were at one point covered
in whole or in part by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act?
Trende: I do not know.
Ho of course was right that these seven were former preclearance
states, suggesting that the vestiges of intentional racial
discrimination still linger 50 years after the Voting Rights Act’s
passage, something Trende did not factor into his analysis.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74760&title=Revealing%20%40SeanTrende-%40Dale_E_Ho%20Exchange%20in%20NC%20Voting%20Rights%20Trial&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>
“Bush-aligned super PAC nets more than $100 million”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74758>
Posted onJuly 31, 2015 8:51 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74758>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo reports.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/07/31/bush-aligned-super-pac-nets-more-than-100-million/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74758&title=%E2%80%9CBush-aligned%20super%20PAC%20nets%20more%20than%20%24100%20million%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
The Kinder, Gentler Koch Bros. (Spending Up to $889 Million with
their Partners on Campaigns in 2016)
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74756>
Posted onJuly 31, 2015 8:49 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74756>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Nick Confessore
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/31/us/koch-brothers-brave-spotlight-to-try-to-alter-their-image.html?_r=1>in
the NYT on Kochs’vaseline on the
lens<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/14/vaseline-camera-trick-effect_n_7062900.html>trick.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74756&title=The%20Kinder%2C%20Gentler%20Koch%20Bros.%20%28Spending%20Up%20to%20%24889%20Million%20with%20their%20Partners%20on%20Campaigns%20in%202016%29&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Embattled Florida elections chief goes on the defense”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74754>
Posted onJuly 31, 2015 8:47 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74754>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Tampa Bay Times
<http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/legislature/embattled-florida-elections-chief-goes-on-the-defense/2239495>:
Under fire once again for lapses in oversight of Florida’s voter
database and lax communication, Gov. Rick Scott’s top elections
official says he’ll “over-communicate” in the future.
For embattled Secretary of State Ken Detzner, it’s an
all-too-familiar refrain as he tries to improve his strained
relationships with county election supervisors, who depend on a
reliable database as they tabulate votes in Florida elections.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74754&title=%E2%80%9CEmbattled%20Florida%20elections%20chief%20goes%20on%20the%20defense%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“Democrats far behind GOP in raising money for ’16 super PACs”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74752>
Posted onJuly 31, 2015 8:46 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74752>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Juile Bykowicz AP
<http://news.yahoo.com/democrats-far-behind-gop-raising-money-16-super-071744542--election.html>:
But most of those [super PACs] aligned with specific presidential
candidates have already said how much they raised between January
and the end of June. So far, they account for roughly $2 of every $3
given in the 2016 presidential race, with the vast majority of those
donations aimed at helping Republicans win back the White House.
Less than 9 percent of the money given to candidate-specific super
PACs so far will benefit Clinton and her rivals for the Democratic
nomination, according to an Associated Press analysis. The AP
compared money raised by formal presidential campaigns with what the
super PACs say they plan to report having raised on Friday.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74752&title=%E2%80%9CDemocrats%20far%20behind%20GOP%20in%20raising%20money%20for%20%E2%80%9916%20super%20PACs%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“In Money Race, Rick Perry’s Campaign Shows the Power of Few”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74750>
Posted onJuly 31, 2015 8:42 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74750>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bloomberg reports.
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-31/perry-s-campaign-shows-the-power-of-few?cmpid=BBD073115_POL>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74750&title=%E2%80%9CIn%20Money%20Race%2C%20Rick%20Perry%E2%80%99s%20Campaign%20Shows%20the%20Power%20of%20Few%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Zephyr Teachout on Getting Big Money Out of Politics”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74748>
Posted onJuly 31, 2015 8:41 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74748>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Justin Miller interviews Zephyr atTAP.
<http://prospect.org/article/zephyr-teachout-getting-big-money-out-politics>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74748&title=%E2%80%9CZephyr%20Teachout%20on%20Getting%20Big%20Money%20Out%20of%20Politics%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“In the Dark About ‘Dark Money'” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74746>
Posted onJuly 31, 2015 8:40 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74746>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Brad Smith
<http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2015/07/30/in-the-dark-about-dark-money/>:
What should be clear is that the very label “dark money,” whether it
can be adequately defined or not, is intended as a pejorative to
skew the difficult discussion about political speech and
participation, government power, and the influence of money and
wealthy donors. It’s handy and catchy, so it sticks, but it is not,
and is not intended to be, a neutral description. And it’s
definition is indeed malleable, so that the merry regulators can use
it as they please. When they think a number sounds scary, they use
it, as if “dark money” were some clearly defined and measurable
concept. When their own numbers are turned back on them (as in
pointing out that it is a very small part of total spending), “dark
money” again becomes a vague concept, in which no one can know what
is lurking below the surface, like some malevolent iceberg or killer
shark.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74746&title=%E2%80%9CIn%20the%20Dark%20About%20%E2%80%98Dark%20Money%27%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Ignorant Voters are the Problem: Campaign Finance Laws Won’t Save
the Nation from Uninformed Voters” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74744>
Posted onJuly 31, 2015 8:37 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74744>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Tony Gaughan oped
<http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/07/31/campaign-finance-cant-be-reformed-because-of-ignorant-voters>at
US News. He’s also written What the Scott Walker fundraising
controversy means for 2016
<https://theconversation.com/what-the-scott-walker-fundraising-controversy-means-for-2016-45147>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74744&title=%E2%80%9CIgnorant%20Voters%20are%20the%20Problem%3A%20Campaign%20Finance%20Laws%20Won%E2%80%99t%20Save%20the%20Nation%20from%20Uninformed%20Voters%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
Quote of the Day: #SCOTUS Edition <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74742>
Posted onJuly 30, 2015 4:34 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74742>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
“Sometimes people say the Supreme Court is there to protect the voice of
a minority… Perhaps, but over time I think most Supreme Court decisions
have been accepted as consistent with the views and beliefs and
commitments and ideas and hopes and dreams of the people.”
—Justice Anthony Kennedy
<http://fox13now.com/2015/07/30/u-s-supreme-court-justice-kennedy-suggests-constitution-evolves-references-same-sex-marriage-case/>,
addressing the Utah Bar Association.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74742&title=Quote%20of%20the%20Day%3A%20%23SCOTUS%20Edition&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Why is an obscure Montana company one of John Kasich’s biggest
boosters? One day after forming, the LLC gave $500,000 to group
backing Ohio governor” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74740>
Posted onJuly 30, 2015 3:06 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74740>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
CPI
<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/07/30/17733/why-obscure-montana-company-one-john-kasichs-biggest-boosters>:
A group backing Republican John Kasich‘s presidential aspirations
received $500,000 in seed money from a seemingly odd source,
according todocuments filed today
<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2187104-new-day-independent-media-committee.html>:
an obscure limited liability company in Montana.
But aCenter for Public Integrity
<http://www.publicintegrity.org/>review of business filings
indicates the company is linked to someone quite familiar to Kasich,
the current governor of Ohio — a venture capitalist who served in
Kasich’s administration.
The limited liability company, called MMWP12 LLC, made a
half-million-dollar donation to the pro-Kasich New Day Independent
Media Committee the day after the company formed.
Making matters murkier: MMWP12 LLC is actually controlled by another
Montana-based company called K2M LLC, according tostate business
records
<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2187165-mmwp12-llc-montana-business-records.html>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74740&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20is%20an%20obscure%20Montana%20company%20one%20of%20John%20Kasich%E2%80%99s%20biggest%20boosters%3F%20One%20day%20after%20forming%2C%20the%20LLC%20gave%20%24500%2C000%20to%20group%20backing%20Ohio%20governor%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Larry Noble Testifies on the IRS and ‘Dark Money’ Before Senate
Judiciary Subcommittee” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74737>
Posted onJuly 30, 2015 2:11 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74737>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
See here.
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/sites/default/files/Larry%20Noble%20Testimony%20before%20Senate%20Judiciary%20on%20-%20IRS%20501cs%207-29-15.pdf>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74737&title=%E2%80%9CLarry%20Noble%20Testifies%20on%20the%20IRS%20and%20%E2%80%98Dark%20Money%E2%80%99%20Before%20Senate%20Judiciary%20Subcommittee%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
State Expert in NC Trial: Walking 3 Miles (Each Way) to Vote Not a
Big Deal <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74735>
Posted onJuly 30, 2015 1:23 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74735>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
From the uncorrected transcript of 7/28 from the North Carolina voting
trial (my emphasis):
BY MS. EARLS
Q Thank you, Your Honor. I have just a couple of questions. Dr.
Hofeller, in your analysis of the proximity to early voting sites,
you concluded that a 5-mile range is a reasonable distance; is that
correct?
A I’m sorry. I think it was 3 miles, was it not?
Q If it’s a 3-mile range, are you assuming that people will have
access to a car or a motor vehicle or are you assuming that they
would walk 3 miles?
A Well, I mean, some will have a motor vehicle and some won’t have a
motor vehicle.
Q So —
*A I know you could probably walk 3 miles. I walk 2 miles a day, and
it doesn’t wear me out very much.*
Q So you didn’t make any assumption either way as to whether or not
people have access to motor vehicles?
A You are correct. I did not make an assumption.
Wow.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74735&title=State%20Expert%20in%20NC%20Trial%3A%20Walking%203%20Miles%20%28Each%20Way%29%20to%20Vote%20Not%20a%20Big%20Deal&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>
“GOP criticizes ‘offensive’ posts of NC elections appointee”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74733>
Posted onJuly 30, 2015 1:05 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74733>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP
<http://www.journalnow.com/news/state_region/gop-criticizes-offensive-posts-of-nc-elections-appointee/article_118d62c8-36f5-11e5-8aa5-8ffa1cbb8f94.html>:
“North Carolina Republican Party officials say they were unaware of
racially tinged social media posts by a man appointed to a county
elections board.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74733&title=%E2%80%9CGOP%20criticizes%20%E2%80%98offensive%E2%80%99%20posts%20of%20NC%20elections%20appointee%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“Pillar of Law Calls on Texas Court to Prevent Criminalization of
Politics” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74731>
Posted onJuly 30, 2015 12:45 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74731>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Press release
<https://pillaroflaw.org/index.php/blog/entry/pillar-of-law-calls-on-texas-court-to-prevent-criminalization-of-politics>:
The Pillar of Law Institute filed an/amicus curiae
<https://pillaroflaw.org/images/Article_PDFs/Cary_v._Texas_II-to_file_7.30.15.pdf>/(friend-of-the-court)
brief with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in the case/Cary v.
Texas/today, arguing that the Texas Attorney General’s Office
unconstitutionally applied the state’s bribery, money laundering and
organized crime statutes to what were actually campaign finance
violations.
I’m one who is generally concerned aboutthe criminalization of politics
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/rick-perry-and-the-criminalization-of-politics>,
but from my quick look I worry this would greatly expand first amendment
protections for bribery.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74731&title=%E2%80%9CPillar%20of%20Law%20Calls%20on%20Texas%20Court%20to%20Prevent%20Criminalization%20of%20Politics%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inbribery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>,campaign finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,chicanery
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
“N.C. attorneys rest their case in federal voting rights trial”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74728>
Posted onJuly 30, 2015 10:53 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74728>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The latest
<http://www.journalnow.com/news/elections/n-c-attorneys-rest-their-case-in-federal-voting-rights/article_54025a12-36d9-11e5-bb9d-3b2faeae03ea.html>from
the NC voting trial. “Closing arguments were scheduled for this
afternoon, but it now appears that they won’t happen until Friday
morning. U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder will issue a written
opinion sometime later this year.”
MORE
<http://www.twcnews.com/nc/triad/news/2015/07/30/closing-arguments-delayed-in-nc-elections-trial.html>from
TWC.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74728&title=%E2%80%9CN.C.%20attorneys%20rest%20their%20case%20in%20federal%20voting%20rights%20trial%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Outcome of trial on N.C. election law changes will have national
effect” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74726>
Posted onJuly 30, 2015 10:51 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74726>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bob Barnes reports
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/outcome-of-trial-on-nc-election-law-changes-will-have-national-effect/2015/07/30/00645094-35f4-11e5-b673-1df005a0fb28_story.html>for
WaPo.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74726&title=%E2%80%9COutcome%20of%20trial%20on%20N.C.%20election%20law%20changes%20will%20have%20national%20effect%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
On Political Fragmentation <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74720>
Posted onJuly 30, 2015 9:21 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74720>byRichard Pildes
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>
“Conservatives hold John Boehner hostage”
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/conservatives-hold-john-boehner-hostage/2015/07/29/6fd3060a-362b-11e5-b673-1df005a0fb28_story.html>
“Boehner response to Meadows insurrection: “No Big Deal””
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/29/boehner-response-to-meadows-insurrection-no-big-deal/> [corrected
link]
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74720&title=On%20Political%20Fragmentation&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“David Prosser says he didn’t need to step aside in Scott Walker
probe” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74717>
Posted onJuly 30, 2015 9:05 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74717>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/david-prosser-says-he-doesnt-need-to-step-aside-in-walker-probe-b99547465z1-319731971.html>
Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser issued an opinion
Wednesday saying he did not need to step aside from cases over an
investigation intoGov. Scott Walker
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/scott-walker-290106981.html>‘s
campaign even though groups spent millions of dollars to support
both him and the governor.
Prosser’sdecision
<http://media.jrn.com/documents/prosserrecusal.pdf>revealed two of
the people caught up in the investigation had been involved in
Prosser’s 2011 re-election bid and had stressed the importance of
finding donors for him.
Prosser wrote that outside spending to help him was “very valuable
to my campaign” but did not rise to a level that would require him
to step down from the challenge to the investigation of those
groups. That’s because the expenditures were made four years ago, at
a time when there was no indication they would appear before the
state’s high court.
“The public ultimately decides at the ballot box who is permitted to
serve on the Wisconsin Supreme Court,” Prosser wrote. “The special
prosecutor seeks to prevent an elected justice from performing that
service unless that unelected special prosecutor wants the elected
justice to sit on the case. This is not the way the system works.”
Prosser was part of a 4-2 majority thatruled this month
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/wisconsin-supreme-court-ends-john-doe-probe-into-scott-walkers-campaign-b99535414z1-315784501.html>that
the probe into Walker’s campaign must be ended and evidence
prosecutors have obtained must be destroyed. It came three days
after the GOP governor formally announced his bid for the presidency.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74717&title=%E2%80%9CDavid%20Prosser%20says%20he%20didn%E2%80%99t%20need%20to%20step%20aside%20in%20Scott%20Walker%20probe%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,judicial
elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>
NVRA Settlement Reached with Oklahoma
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74715>
Posted onJuly 30, 2015 9:03 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74715>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Demos press release
<http://www.demos.org/press-release/voting-rights-advocates-settle-matter-alleging-nvra-violations>:
Voting rights advocates and Oklahoma officials announced today that
asettlement has been reached
<http://www.demos.org/publication/oklahoma-national-voter-registration-act-settlement>to
provide more effective voter registration opportunities to citizens
throughout the state.
This effort began last summer when the Metropolitan Tulsa Urban
League, the League of Women Voters of Oklahoma and Metropolitan
Tulsa, and YWCA Tulsa notified Paul Ziriax, the Secretary of the
Oklahoma State Election Board, that it appeared Oklahoma’s public
assistance agencies were not offering clients a meaningful
opportunity to register to vote. Under the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), state agencies that provide public
assistance must ask clients whether they want to register to vote,
offer them voter registration materials, and help them complete
registration forms.
The community groups said in their letter to Secretary Ziriax that
the number of voter registration applications reported statewide by
Oklahoma public assistance agencies had dropped 81 percent since the
initial implementation of the NVRA in 1995. At the same time, the
average monthly participation in the SNAP program, just one of the
programs covered by the NVRA, nearly doubled. Only 61 percent of
Oklahoma citizens in low-income households were registered to vote
in 2012, compared to 81 percent of those in affluent households. In
fieldwork investigations conducted at Oklahoma public assistance
agencies on behalf of the community groups, a significant percentage
of agency clients interviewed said that they received no voter
registration services whatsoever when, under the NVRA, they should
have….
Read the full settlement here.
<http://www.demos.org/publication/oklahoma-national-voter-registration-act-settlement>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74715&title=NVRA%20Settlement%20Reached%20with%20Oklahoma&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,NVRA (motor voter)
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>
The Most Interesting Question in Evenwel
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74712>
Posted onJuly 30, 2015 8:30 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74712>byRichard Pildes
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>
In mycontribution to the SCOTUS blog Symposium
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/07/symposium-misguided-hysteria-over-evenwel-v-abbott/>in
this case, I provide reasons that the Court is unlikely, in my view, to
accept the appellants’ position. But that is not the end of the case.
The more interesting question is whether the Court will decide that the
Constitution/forbids/states from basing districts on eligible voters
lone and/requires/that total population be used (as, in fact, has been
existing practice for several decades). Here is part of what I say
about whether states are free to pick and choose between “voter
equality” or “representational equality” in designing districts:
Remarkably, the Court has only focused on this substantive question
at all in one case,/Burns v. Richardson/(1966), decided at the dawn
of the reapportionment revolution;/Burns/concluded states could make
either choice. Now that the issue is back before the Court nearly
fifty years later, the jurisprudential issue is whether all the
developments in redistricting and voting-rights law in those
intervening years should lead the Court to conclude that equal
protection requires a uniform understanding concerning the correct
population measure that must be used. (My co-authored casebook,/The
Law of Democracy/, asks whether “/Burns/survives the subsequent
development of voting rights law.”) If the Court does conclude that
a uniform understanding of “equality” is required, the most likely
outcome is representational equality – equality of the total number
of persons across districts.
The argument for a uniform understanding of “equality” is strong, as
a matter of both constitutional principle and pragmatic judicial
implementation of the Constitution. In the apportionment cases, the
Court has spoken eloquently many times about the importance of
political equality in designing districts – but equality of whom,
people or voters? If the basic principle is of such constitutional
magnitude, there is much force to the conclusion that the Court has
an obligation to specify equality of whom, or equality with respect
to what value or principle. The choice between electoral equality
and representational quality is not a fine-grained technical detail
of how to implement the Equal Protection Clause. That choice is a
fundamental, categorical one about the essential interpretation and
meaning of equal protection in the context of designing our basic
democratic institutions. Does the clause require that all persons in
a jurisdiction (non-eligible voters as well as voters) have roughly
equal political representation? Or does it require that all eligible
voters have a roughly equal voting power? Those are fundamentally
different-in-kind understandings of equal protection that flow from
the Court’s “one person, one vote” jurisprudence – precisely the
kind of question, in other contexts, to which the Court would
provide the answer.
The reason the Court gave in/Burns/for leaving this choice instead
to state discretion was that the decision of which groups to include
in the baseline for districting “involves choices about the nature
of representation with which we have been shown no constitutionally
founded reason to interfere.” But in the context of the
Reapportionment Cases, this explanation is off-key. After all, it
was the vehement position of the dissenting Justices in these cases,
such as Justices Harlan and Frankfurter, that the Court should not
get involved in these issues at all because to get involved was to
require the Court to choose among competing theories of political
representation.
The Court crossed that Rubicon when it decided that equal protection
did not permit representation to be based on geographic units, such
as towns and counties, and did require it to be based on equal
numbers of sentient beings (people or voters). Having completely
redefined the basis of political representation the Constitution
requires, the Court’s reticence about not wanting to choose between
competing theories of representation when it comes to voters or
people rings hollow. Instead,/Burns/reads like a tentative, interim,
and transitional decision in the early stages of working out the
meaning of the Reapportionment Cases. Decided only two months after
argument,/Burns/arose with elections imminently pending and dealt
with what was only an interim districting plan; in other words, the
stakes were low, the need for an immediate decision pressing.
With the much fuller development of the “one person, one vote”
doctrine in the fifty years since, it is not obvious the Court will
be comfortable with leaving states as much discretion to choose
“equality of whom” in districting. And given the intensity of
today’s political conflicts over immigration, it is not difficult to
imagine those politics coming to further poison redistricting, if
states are free to move back and forth between using voters or
persons as the measure of district equality. Given how aware the
Court is of the extreme partisan polarization of our era, and how
that polarization plays out already in districting, the Justices
might conclude that strong pragmatic reasons further support
adoption of a uniform principle concerning district “equality.”
The courts of appeals, in the three major cases raising this issue,
have all explained why representational equality is the better
interpretation of the principles underlying the “one person, one
vote” doctrine. But all have recognized that the issue is important
and the question close. In/Evenwel/, this issue arose for the first
time in the Court’s non-discretionary appellate jurisdiction; the
Court was right to take the case, rather than summarily affirm, and
to give this issue the attention it deserves. Texas, as the
defendant-appellee, will only ask the Court to affirm the status quo
and let Texas (and other States) continue to have discretion to
choose whether to create district equality between persons or
voters. Texas will succeed to at least that extent, I believe. But
now that the Court will be forced to confront these issues, the
Court might well conclude that it has an obligation to decide
whether there is a right answer to the question under the Equal
Protection Clause of “equality of whom” and that the better answer
is equality of political representation for all persons.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74712&title=The%20Most%20Interesting%20Question%20in%20Evenwel&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/20150731/7e62c155/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/20150731/7e62c155/attachment.png>
View list directory