[EL] ELB News and Commentary 6/1/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Mon Jun 1 06:05:57 PDT 2015
“Justices Get Out More, but Calendars Aren’t Open to Just Anyone”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73004>
Posted onJune 1, 2015 6:04 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73004>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Adam Liptak NYT Sidebar column
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/us/politics/justices-get-out-more-but-calendars-arent-open-to-just-anyone.html>on
Justices’ appearances features my new research:
The recent flurry of public appearances is part of a trend that has
been decades in the making. As the court’s workload has dropped, the
justices have found time for more outside appearances.
“The modern period, and the last decade in particular, has seen an
explosion of Supreme Court justices being publicly reported on and
being seen to some extent as celebrities,” said Richard L. Hasen, a
law professor and political scientist at the University of
California, Irvine.
Professor Hasen is the author ofa new study
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2611729>that
tries to quantify the phenomenon, using news reports on justices’
appearances from 1960 on. He found 196 appearances in the 1960s and
just 95 in the 1970s. In the last decade, from 2005 to 2014, the
number of appearances rose to 880.
Professor Hasen’s study includes a Celebrity Index, calculated by
dividing a justice’s appearances by his or her years on the court.
Justice Sotomayor comes in first. She is followed by Justice Stephen
G. Breyer and Justice Arthur J. Goldberg, who packed a lot of
appearances into his three years on the court in the 1960s.
The rest of the top 10 is made up of the current members of the
court. Justice Clarence Thomas, taciturn on the bench, is loquacious
off it, coming in fifth. Bringing up the rear on the current court
are Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Elena Kagan.
Professor Hasen’s data has limitations. Not all appearances give
rise to news reports, and not all news reports, especially ones
before the digital era, are easy to find….
Justice Ginsburg will take part in another public interview in two
weeks, atthe annual convention of the American Constitution Society
<http://www.acslaw.org/convention/2015>, a liberal legal group.
Other members of the court’s liberal wing, including Justices
Stevens and Sotomayor, have also spoken before the group.
On the other hand, Justices Scalia, Alito and Thomas, members of the
court’s conservative wing, have addressed the Federalist Society, a
conservative group.
There seems to be vanishingly little crossover.
“I could find no record of a sitting liberal Supreme Court justice
addressing the Federalist Society or a sitting conservative Supreme
Court justice addressing the American Constitution Society,”
Professor Hasen wrote.
That pattern, he said, sends an unfortunate message.
“It gives the impression to the public that the justices are on one
side or the other,” he said in an interview.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73004&title=%E2%80%9CJustices%20Get%20Out%20More%2C%20but%20Calendars%20Aren%E2%80%99t%20Open%20to%20Just%20Anyone%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inCelebrity Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=109>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Essay: Celebrity Justice: Supreme Court Edition”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73002>
Posted onJune 1, 2015 6:02 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73002>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I have postedthis draft
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2611729>on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
It is not your imagination. Supreme Court Justices are in the news
more than ever, whether they are selling books, testifying before
Congress, addressing a Federalist Society, or American Constitution
Society event, or just talking to a Muppet on Sesame Street. The
number of books about the Court and particular Justices continues to
grow. Websites are now devoted to tracking the Justices’ movements
as they crisscross the country (and the world) speaking to various
audiences. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is even promoted on T-shirts
as the “Notorious R.B.G.,” a riff on the name of famous rap artist
Notorious B.I.G. She will soon be the topic of a biopic staring
Natalie Portman.
That Supreme Court Justices have become celebrities is not news.
Indeed, Justices’ public statements about same-sex marriage or Bush
v. Gore often get extensive coverage, and extrajudicial comments on
issues in pending cases sometimes lead to (ignored) calls for
judicial recusal. However, until now no one has quantified the
increase in the number of publicly reported events and interviews
done by Justices overall and which Justices engage most reported
extrajudicial speech.
Using an original dataset of reported instances of Supreme Court
Justice extrajudicial appearances and interviews from 1960 to 2014,
I find that the amount of reported extrajudicial speech has
increased dramatically, especially in the past decade. From
1960-1969, research identified 196 publicly-reported appearances or
interviews by all the Justices combined. This number fell by half
(to 95) in the 1970s. From 2005-2014 it rose to 880, a nine-fold
fold increase over the 1970s. The data show close to a doubling of
the number of reported appearances from the 1970s to the 1980s and
from the 1980s to 1990s, and then more than doubling of the number
of reported appearances from the 1990s to the 2000s. While a small
part of that discrepancy between old and new rates of appearances
may be due to research limitations as to older news sources, most of
the discrepancy appears due to the great increase in the number of
reported public appearances by Justices, driven in part by the
swelled number of media outlets looking to interview and report on
the Justices.
Further, not all Justices are created equal when it comes to
Celebrity Justice. John Marshall Harlan, had a mere 4 reported
appearances or interviews from 1960 until he left the Court in 1971.
Five Justices had over 175 reported appearances or interviews:
Stephen Breyer (250), Ginsburg (206), Anthony Kennedy (179), Scalia
(199), and Clarence Thomas (192). Dividing the number of appearances
by the number of years a Justice was on the Court from 1960 until
2014 yields a “Celebrity Index.” In that Index, Justice Sonia
Sotomayor is the highest scoring celebrity Justice, with a score of
13.8 annual reported appearances, followed by Justice Breyer, with a
score of 12.5. Nine of the top ten Justices in the Index are current
Supreme Court Justices. Finally, not all types of appearances are
the same. Some Justices are much more likely to give interviews than
others. Justice Sotomayor has given the largest percentage of
interviews, and Justice Kennedy the smallest.
This Essay proceeds in three parts. Part I sets out the evidence of
the rise of Celebrity Justices and the variations among Justices.
Part II discusses methodological concerns. Part III briefly reflects
on the normative question whether the rise of the Celebrity Justice
is good or bad. I argue that the answer is mixed, but the trend of
public appearances and interviews likely will continue to grow in
coming years thanks to a drastically changed media landscape and a
politicized Court.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73002&title=%E2%80%9CEssay%3A%20Celebrity%20Justice%3A%20Supreme%20Court%20Edition%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inCelebrity Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=109>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Common Cause “Gerrymander Standard” Third Place Winner
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72987>
Posted onJune 1, 2015 6:00 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72987>byDan
Tokaji <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=5>
As co-chairs ofCommon Cause’s inaugural Democracy Prize writing
competition to identify the best “gerrymander standard”,
<http://www.commoncause.org/issues/voting-and-elections/redistricting/gerrymander-standard-writing-competition.html>it’s
our privilege to announce the winners of the competition this week,as
promisedon Friday <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72948>. First up is
our third-place entry, which is titled “A Discernable and Manageable
Standard for Partisan Gerrymandering.” The authors areAnthony McGann
from the University of Strathclyde
<https://pure.strath.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/anthony-mcgann%28eb449683-abae-4596-b06c-61a406056f45%29.html>,Charles
Anthony Smith
<http://www.faculty.uci.edu/profile.cfm?faculty_id=5443>andAlex Keena
<http://www.polisci.uci.edu/grad/students.php>from UC Irvine, andMichael
Latner <http://cla.calpoly.edu/pols_michael_latner.html>from Cal Poly
San Luis Obispo.
This paper argues that the way to effectively combat partisan
gerrymandering is to demonstrate that existing measures can be grounded
in constitutionally protected rights. The authors argue that the right
to equal protection of individual voters implies that a majority of
voters should be able to elect a majority of representatives. They then
show why this majority rule principle logically implies the partisan
symmetry standard, which means that each party can elect the same
fraction of legislative seats as the other party would receive if it had
received the same percentage of voters. Finally, the authors explain how
the partisan symmetry standard can be implemented.
This paper sheds important light on theories for measuring
gerrymandering with which the legal community is already familiar and
comfortable. The authors effectively explain how these measurements
illuminate the anti-democratic consequences of partisan
gerrymandering, and how litigators can argue that the imbalance between
votes and outcomes represents a constitutional violation.
Congratulations to the third place winners. Read the paper’s
introduction here.
<http://www.commoncause.org/issues/voting-and-elections/redistricting/a-discernable-and-manageable.pdf>The
final version will be published in Election Law Journal this fall. And
stay tuned. The second-place winner will be announcedtomorrowand the
first-place winner Wednesday.
Norm Ornstein & Dan Tokaji
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72987&title=Common%20Cause%20%E2%80%9CGerrymander%20Standard%E2%80%9D%20Third%20Place%20Winner&description=>
Posted inelection law biz
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>,redistricting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
“One Person, One Vote? The Supreme Court will consider whether
equality of representation requires equal numbers of eligible
voters, or equal numbers of people.”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73000>
Posted onJune 1, 2015 5:58 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73000>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Garrett
Epps<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/one-person-one-vote/394502/>for
The Atlantic.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73000&title=%E2%80%9COne%20Person%2C%20One%20Vote%3F%20The%20Supreme%20Court%20will%20consider%20whether%20equality%20of%20representation%20requires%20equal%20numbers%20of%20eligible%20voters%2C%20or%20equal%20numbers%20of%20people.%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“The coming revolution in campaign communication”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72998>
Posted onJune 1, 2015 5:57 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72998>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Nate Persily
<http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/california-forum/article22581321.html>in
the SacBee:
With the shift of campaign communication to the Internet, new
policies and practices will need to be developed. This transition
provides an opportunity for reforms that might address many of the
well-known pathologies of campaign financing, such as undisclosed
spending, as well as dangers that a few firms could have
disproportionate power over campaign-related speech.
As with all things Internet-related, predictions of utopia and
dystopia abound. Perhaps the inexpensiveness of online campaign
communication will open up a marketplace of ideas to a broader range
of voices that could not get their message out when television
dominated. Or perhaps the online cacophony will actually increase
the price of getting one’s message to the right people, especially
if just a few portals provide the necessary infrastructure to
capture and target an increasingly inattentive audience.
Making the right policy decisions now, during this period of
fundamental transformation, will determine which future is in store
for American political campaigns.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72998&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20coming%20revolution%20in%20campaign%20communication%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Hastert’s post-Congress life one of political withdrawal and
chasing cash” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72983>
Posted onMay 31, 2015 12:37 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72983>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hasterts-post-congress-life-one-of-political-withdrawal-and-chasing-cash/2015/05/30/ecde371a-0655-11e5-8bda-c7b4e9a8f7ac_story.html>:
J. Dennis Hastert’s political winter in Washington has been defined
by two seemingly contradictory traits. He shrank almost completely
from the spotlight while becoming so dogged in the pursuit of wealth
that it puzzled his longtime friends.
After retiring from Congress in 2007, the Illinois Republican did
not avail himself of the traditional perks afforded elder statesmen.
He didn’t serve on commissions or join think tanks, never became an
ambassador and rarely made media appearances to dole out wisdom.
At the same time Hastert, 73, was relentless in pounding the K
Street pavement, serving as a rainmaker for a law firm for the past
seven years. He wasn’t a regular presence in the Capitol hallways
lobbying his old colleagues, but he advised nearly two dozen
corporate clients that paid millions for his counsel.
MORE
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/us/after-speakership-hastert-amassed-his-millions-lobbying-former-colleagues.html?ref=politics>from
the NYT.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72983&title=%E2%80%9CHastert%E2%80%99s%20post-Congress%20life%20one%20of%20political%20withdrawal%20and%20chasing%20cash%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inchicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>,lobbying
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
“Jeb Bush: ‘I would never’ violate campaign laws”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72981>
Posted onMay 31, 2015 12:35 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72981>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/31/jeb-bush-i-would-never-violate-campaign-laws/>:
“I would never do that,” he told CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “And I’m
nearing the end of this journey of traveling and listening to
people, garnering, trying to get a sense of whether my candidacy
would be viable or not. We’re going to completely adhere to the law,
for sure. Look, politics is politics. There’s always people that are
going to be carping on the sidelines. And should I be a candidate,
and that will be in the relatively near future where that decision
will be made. There’ll be no coordination at all with any super PAC.”
NoteJeb the Destroyer
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/04/jeb_bush_destroying_campaign_finance_rules_his_tactics_will_be_the_future.html>‘s
use of the future tense in the last sentence.
NYT Editorial:The ‘Non-Candidate’ Money Spigot
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/opinion/sunday/the-non-candidate-money-spigot.html?ref=politics>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72981&title=%E2%80%9CJeb%20Bush%3A%20%E2%80%98I%20would%20never%E2%80%99%20violate%20campaign%20laws%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Manager fears ex-mayor’s influence in City of Industry election”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72979>
Posted onMay 31, 2015 12:32 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72979>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Today’s must-read
<http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-industry-elections-20150531-story.html#page=1> comes
from the LA Times, about another sparsely populated wealthy CA city that
looks to be the personal fiefdom of a few families and where voting
rights of the few voters are hotly disputed.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72979&title=%E2%80%9CManager%20fears%20ex-mayor%E2%80%99s%20influence%20in%20City%20of%20Industry%20election%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted invoting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
“Hillary Clinton campaign scores Ready for Hillary email list”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72977>
Posted onMay 31, 2015 12:30 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72977>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politico reports.
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clinton-campaign-scores-ready-for-hillary-email-list-118446.html>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72977&title=%E2%80%9CHillary%20Clinton%20campaign%20scores%20Ready%20for%20Hillary%20email%20list%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Contra Costa Times editorial: Two Supreme Court cases threaten to
unravel California election reform”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72975>
Posted onMay 31, 2015 12:29 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72975>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Arizona and Evenwel.
<http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_28217220/contra-costa-times-editorial-two-supreme-court-cases>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72975&title=%E2%80%9CContra%20Costa%20Times%20editorial%3A%20Two%20Supreme%20Court%20cases%20threaten%20to%20unravel%20California%20election%20reform%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“The next political battleground: your phone”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72973>
Posted onMay 31, 2015 11:18 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72973>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
CNN
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/29/politics/2016-presidential-campaigns-mobile-technology/index.html>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72973&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20next%20political%20battleground%3A%20your%20phone%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
Democrats: Plutocrats Wanted <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72971>
Posted onMay 31, 2015 11:17 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72971>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
A-1 NYT.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/us/politics/democrats-seek-a-richer-roster-to-match-gop-in-2016-election.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1> Really,
what choice do Democrats have in this era but to beg for the support of
the uber-rich?
Yet this quote from Harold Ickes is priceless, as if only Democratic
plutocrats are philanthropic:
“Our side isn’t used to being asked for that kind of money,” Mr.
Ickes said. “If you asked them to put up $100 million for a hospital
wing, they’d be the first in line.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72971&title=Democrats%3A%20Plutocrats%20Wanted&description=>
Posted incampaign finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Plutocrats United
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>
Call for Papers – Voting Rights Act Symposium
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72969>
Posted onMay 30, 2015 11:47 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72969>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
From the Cumberland Law Review:
The/Cumberland Law Review/is doggedly searching for articles,
insights, and ideas that implicate a subject that we believe our
journal is uniquely situated (and arguably obligated) to explore: a
sort of retrospective of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Our host
city, Birmingham, Ala., is one of the more prominent characters in
our national recollection of the Civil Rights era and the 20th
century ills that necessitated legislation such as the VRA and the
Civil Rights Act.
In light of the VRA’s 50th anniversary and recent SCOTUS decisions
(from/Shelby Co./to/Ala. Legislative Black Caucus/), we think it
appropriate to devote enough space in one of our forthcoming
editions to an articles symposium on point. As of now, though, the
quantity and quality of articles we’ve received along this vein have
been underwhelming, so we’re casting a wide net in soliciting
contributions from such discerning and intelligent minds as yours.
If you have the time or interest in submitting or pitching articles,
or just touching base with thoughts and suggestions re: other people
to reach out to, please don’t hesitate to reach out to either me or
our Articles Editor, Stewart Alvis. Thanks in advance! Enjoy your
summers.
Yours truly,
Walker Mason Beauchamp
Editor-in-Chief,/Cumberland Law Review/
wbeaucha at samford.edu / 205-821-5800
Stewart J. Alvis
Acquisitions Editor,/Cumberland Law Review/
salvis at samford.edu
P.S.—Please feel free to reach out about pieces that are only
tangentially related to the VRA, too! We have other pieces in the
works that implicate Civil Rights, but not necessarily the VRA or
election law. E.g., UNC’s Al Brophy is writing a short legal history
for us on early 20th-century Southern jurisprudence, and we’ve
uncovered some (hopefully) excerptable material from Judge Horton’s
papers (of Scottsboro Boys fame), archived here at our campus library.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72969&title=Call%20for%20Papers%20%E2%80%93%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20Symposium&description=>
Posted inVoting 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/20150601/a01c2a24/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/20150601/a01c2a24/attachment.png>
View list directory