[EL] ELB News and Commentary 8/1/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Fri Jul 31 19:50:28 PDT 2015
“‘Super PACs’ Spent Millions Before Candidates Announced, Filings
Show” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74785>
Posted onJuly 31, 2015 7:45 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74785>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Eric Lichtblau
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/01/us/politics/super-pacs-spent-millions-before-candidates-announced-filings-show.html?ref=politics>for
the NYT:
Acting as shadow campaigns, the political committees backing the
major presidential candidates supported them with tens of millions
of dollars in chartered planes, luxury hotel suites, opposition
research, high-priced lawyers and more, spending reports showed Friday.
Campaign disclosures filed with the Federal Election Commission
underscored just how far the candidates — particularlyJeb Bush
<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/15/us/elections/jeb-bush.html?inline=nyt-per>—
went in outsourcing many of their traditional campaign operations to
“super PACs
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/campaign_finance/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>,”
which face much looser regulation.
The super PACs, which have dominated the fund-raising landscape so
far in the 2016 campaign, reported that they had raised a total of
at least $245 million so far this year, with individual donations of
a million dollars or more to Mr. Bush,Hillary Rodham Clinton
<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/13/us/elections/hillary-clinton.html?inline=nyt-per>,
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and others.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74785&title=%E2%80%9C%E2%80%98Super%20PACs%E2%80%99%20Spent%20Millions%20Before%20Candidates%20Announced%2C%20Filings%20Show%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Historic federal trial on voting rights ends; judge to issue
decision later this year” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74783>
Posted onJuly 31, 2015 7:40 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74783>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Winston-Salem Journal
<http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/judge-asks-pointed-questions-of-plaintiff-s-attorney-in-closing/article_5256f85b-76e6-5baa-870c-b5ba1119a268.html>:
Thomas Farr, one of the state’s attorneys, said in closing arguments
that the plaintiffs had not presented any evidence that the law is
racially discriminatory. He said North Carolina legislators have the
authority to enact changes to election law.
Schroeder asked Farr what the justification was in making the
election law changes. State Republican legislators said publicly
they wanted to restore public confidence in the election system and
stamp out potential voter fraud.
There is no evidence of widespread in-person voter fraud in North
Carolina or nationally. An expert for the plaintiffs testified that
North Carolina had only two verified cases of voter fraud out of 35
million votes cast in primary and presidential elections between
2000 and 2014.
Farr pointed to public statements made by state legislators but also
added that state Republican legislators had no obligation to offer
justification for House Bill 589. Alexander Peters, another of the
state’s attorneys, said this case was about policy changes that
North Carolina legislators have the authority to make. He said those
changes might cause some burdens on voters but that the law is
constitutional and not racist.
Farr argued that the law put North Carolina in the mainstream with
the rest of the country. How can House Bill 589 be discriminatory if
a significant number of states don’t have such voting practices,
such as same-day voter registration, Farr asked.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74783&title=%E2%80%9CHistoric%20federal%20trial%20on%20voting%20rights%20ends%3B%20judge%20to%20issue%20decision%20later%20this%20year%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>
“US judge has many questions in NC voting rights case”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74781>
Posted onJuly 31, 2015 5:04 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74781>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The News & Observer reports.
<http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article29703298.html>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74781&title=%E2%80%9CUS%20judge%20has%20many%20questions%20in%20NC%20voting%20rights%20case%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>
“Key Voting Rights Test Now in Federal Judge’s Hands”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74779>
Posted onJuly 31, 2015 4:39 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74779>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Erik Eckholm
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/01/us/key-voting-rights-test-now-in-federal-judges-hands.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0>for
the NYT:
During closing arguments Friday, Judge Schroeder,who was appointed
by President George W. Bush, peppered the plaintiffs’ lawyers with
questions about why the repeal of extra voting opportunities that do
not exist in many states would be illegal.
But he also pressed the state’s lawyers on what motivated
legislators to make the sudden changes to a system that seemed to be
popular and working well. “They made voting easier and that’s a good
thing,” he said of the measures that were trimmed or repealed.
His ruling is not expected for many weeks and is almost certain to
be appealed, perhaps as far as the Supreme Court.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74779&title=%E2%80%9CKey%20Voting%20Rights%20Test%20Now%20in%20Federal%20Judge%E2%80%99s%20Hands%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>
“Bush not a candidate? Super PAC’s spending reveals otherwise”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74777>
Posted onJuly 31, 2015 1:18 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74777>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Reuters
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/31/us-usa-election-bush-idUSKCN0Q526M20150731>:
The first report of Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush’s
Super PAC, made public Friday, reveals for the first time, election
lawyers say, just how much the group, Right to Rise, functioned as a
kind of shadow campaign for Bush.
The group shelled out $5.4 million from January through June for all
the workaday line items, from travel to catering to political
consulting, that have traditionally been paid for by candidates’
campaign committees.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74777&title=%E2%80%9CBush%20not%20a%20candidate%3F%20Super%20PAC%E2%80%99s%20spending%20reveals%20otherwise%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Judge asks pointed questions of plaintiff’s attorney in closing
arguments of federal voting rights trial”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74775>
Posted onJuly 31, 2015 12:28 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74775>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
This is
key<http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/judge-asks-pointed-questions-of-plaintiff-s-attorney-in-closing/article_5256f85b-76e6-5baa-870c-b5ba1119a268.html>in
NC voting trial:
U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder interrupted Daniel Donovan, one
of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, several times during his
two-hour closing argument, asking him pointed questions about the case.
One of Schroeder’s main questions was centered on what evidence the
plaintiffs had that the law placed burdens on racial minorities.
Plaintiffs have argued that blacks use same-day voter registration,
early voting and out-of-precinct provisional voting at higher rates
than whites and that disproportionate use is connected to
socio-economic and historical conditions. For example, blacks are
more likely to move and thus more likely to end up in the wrong
precinct on Election Day. They also are more likely to work
lower-wage jobs and might not be able to have the flexibility to get
off to vote and thus may use early voting at disproportionate rates.
Schroeder asked whether these were merely conveniences and pointed
out several times that other states, such as New York, don’t have
many of these provisions. He said would it be a Section 2 violation
if North Carolina never had these provisions at all. Would it be a
Section 2 violation if they were put in place to increase access
specifically to black voters, Schroeder asked.
Donovan said that would be the wrong way to look at the issue. The
provisions were passed to benefit everyone but blacks use them at a
disproportionate rate, and Section 2 prohibits election laws that
have a disproportionately negative impact on racial minorities, he said.
Donovan also argued that it doesn’t matter what other states do
because Schroeder has to base his decision on the past history and
the present reality in North Carolina.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74775&title=%E2%80%9CJudge%20asks%20pointed%20questions%20of%20plaintiff%E2%80%99s%20attorney%20in%20closing%20arguments%20of%20federal%20voting%20rights%20trial%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
Justice Stevens Slams Justice Scalia’s “Disrespectful Rhetoric”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74769>
Posted onJuly 31, 2015 12:02 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74769>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
In remarks foran ABA speech today
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/speeches/JPS_Speech_ABA_Section_of_Litigation_International_Human_Rights_Award_Luncheon_07-31-15.pdf>,
in the context of a discussion of the Arizona redistricting case:
Screen Shot 2015-07-31 at 12.01.58 PM
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2015-07-31-at-12.01.58-PM.png>
Justice Stevens is much more full of praise for Chief Justice Roberts,
who he says decides cases based on what he thinks the law is rather than
his personal preferences.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74769&title=Justice%20Stevens%20Slams%20Justice%20Scalia%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%9CDisrespectful%20Rhetoric%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Closing arguments in voting rights trial set for today”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74767>
Posted onJuly 31, 2015 9:24 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74767>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Michael Hewlett reports
<http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/closing-arguments-in-voting-rights-trial-set-for-today/article_63912da6-3723-11e5-bf4b-b320be57f268.html>for
the Winston-Salem Journal.
Kudos to them for their indispensable coverage of the North Carolina
voting rights trial.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74767&title=%E2%80%9CClosing%20arguments%20in%20voting%20rights%20trial%20set%20for%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>
--
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/20150731/023cb4ba/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/20150731/023cb4ba/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screen-Shot-2015-07-31-at-12.01.58-PM.png
Type: image/png
Size: 73235 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150731/023cb4ba/attachment-0001.png>
View list directory