[EL] ELB News and Commentary 6/10/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Wed Jun 10 08:38:45 PDT 2015
“Here’s Jeb Bush’s paperwork to run for president, at long last”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73350>
Posted onJune 10, 2015 8:36 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73350>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo reports.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/09/heres-jeb-bushs-paperwork-to-run-for-president-at-long-last/?postshare=6501433867259371>
It’s amazing. I guess it takes helping your Super PAC try to raise $100
million for your campaign and making literally dozens of campaign
appearances, including in early caucus and primary states, to help
someone who is not a candidate decide to skip the “testing the waters”
phase and become a candidate.
You never know though. He’s left himself an escape hatch. “If I run…”
Earlier:Jeb 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>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73350&title=%E2%80%9CHere%E2%80%99s%20Jeb%20Bush%E2%80%99s%20paperwork%20to%20run%20for%20president%2C%20at%20long%20last%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“CCP Study Shows IRS ‘almost universally hostile towards nonprofits’
for decades” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73348>
Posted onJune 10, 2015 8:32 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73348>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
CCP
<http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2015/06/10/ccp-study-shows-irs-almost-universally-hostile-towards-nonprofits-for-decades/>:
The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) today released a report by
Allison R. Hayward, an election law attorney in California, entitled
“Eternal Inconsistency,” on the history of how the IRS has,
according to the report, “been almost universally hostile toward
nonprofits” for nearly a century.
To read “Eternal Inconsistency: The Stunning Variability in, and
Expedient Motives Behind the Tax Regulation of Nonprofit Advocacy
Groups,” click here
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001XIOqpFTW8i3rUP-XEo3oh03Xn9kzsX2gKlIoUaZ6Fva0_J-XRO4QEvoOnLL97wPNdhSXiAyKZFWu1U1BT1GqCbwqb1n6u45kWl-F-CgfK9CyDkPwn5djUTQPz4dYtKdrgfHj40yP4aQftAnNw2pCuNMLBjGOrUt9lB8tB5s4htnPGuWcKu4ZXlNhQAQxmarDSZj3hIDItAVEnZXPTin7acpru_p8mwfFxk5pIauMRl3kv2Bn-l-C2aQJPcPtUN6I0rJxmzaR9wqGfun2cdkNFg==&c=YoXLwTKk0-RdSl2L53CWjdxj7VdplEvB8KrurBE-kx082NRR7lhL0w==&ch=NFsd5WYsgEIBlU1bwu6yliByAGt26vzmw1tXa8HNo0u_aUnzp9HAWQ==> or
go to
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Hayward_Eternal-Inconsistency.pdf
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001XIOqpFTW8i3rUP-XEo3oh03Xn9kzsX2gKlIoUaZ6Fva0_J-XRO4QEvoOnLL97wPNdhSXiAyKZFWu1U1BT1GqCbwqb1n6u45kWl-F-CgfK9CyDkPwn5djUTQPz4dYtKdrgfHj40yP4aQftAnNw2pCuNMLBjGOrUt9lB8tB5s4htnPGuWcKu4ZXlNhQAQxmarDSZj3hIDItAVEnZXPTin7acpru_p8mwfFxk5pIauMRl3kv2Bn-l-C2aQJPcPtUN6I0rJxmzaR9wqGfun2cdkNFg==&c=YoXLwTKk0-RdSl2L53CWjdxj7VdplEvB8KrurBE-kx082NRR7lhL0w==&ch=NFsd5WYsgEIBlU1bwu6yliByAGt26vzmw1tXa8HNo0u_aUnzp9HAWQ==>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73348&title=%E2%80%9CCCP%20Study%20Shows%20IRS%20%E2%80%98almost%20universally%20hostile%20towards%20nonprofits%E2%80%99%20for%20decades%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,tax law
and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
“Don’t Be Silly – THE PCEA WORKED: A Rejoinder to Some Critics of
Hasen’s Slate Piece” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73346>
Posted onJune 10, 2015 8:30 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73346>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Doug Chapin
<http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/electionacademy/2015/06/the_pcea_worked_a_rejoinder_to.php>:
My major disagreement with the two critiques is the apparent
assumption that the outcome of next year’s presidential election
will matter in the ongoing fights over election policy.
First of all, the federal government has little if any influence
over state and election laws; while renewal/revision of the Voting
Rights Act in the wake of the Shelby County case would certainly
re-establish Washington’s limited presence, the truth of the matter
is that registration and voting are still almost exclusively the
province of state and local governments. The next President (whoever
s/he may be) and the 115th Congress will almost certainly be a
constant source of debate over these issues, but experience suggests
progress and impact will be minimal if any. It will also depend
heavily on the outcome of state elections which may or may not be
affected by what happens in the presidential campaign.
Second, even if the federal government could make those kinds of
changes (which I highly doubt), it’s extremely unlikely that
Secretary Clinton, if she does enter the White House in January
2017, is going to have the kind of Congressional majorities
necessary to make good on the changes she suggests. If she doesn’t,
you can bet that the GOP opposition will be hard-pressed to concede
on election policy given the sharpness of her critiques.
That said, I readily admit that reasonable people can and do
disagree about the role campaigns (and campaign rhetoric) play in
the policy realm. I have said time and again on this blog that I am
an election geek, not a political junkie, and so it isn’t surprising
that I would favor quiet bipartisan progress over aggressive
partisan rhetoric. But I can see why people who favor a more
partisan tack would approve of that approach – and we will just have
to agree to disagree.
But there was one other component of both the Salon and Washington
Monthly pieces that I think is so wrong it led me to yell at my
computer screen.
Salon:
Hasen tries to prove there’s a relevant bloc of moderate Republicans
in state governments by citing a report that came out of a
presidential commission.*If you know much about presidential
commissions — which are often established in order to stall for time
until the media stops paying attention — you know that this is
exceedingly weak tea.*It’s weaker still once you know that the
moderate Republican on the commission was an elite lawyer who served
on the Mitt Romney campaign.Washington Monthly:
Hasen mentions the bipartisan “Lines Commission” appointed by
President Obama and its worthy recommendations. But the very reason
so many people think HRC is taking a stronger position than Obama on
this subject*is that the “Lines Commission” report vanished without
a single trace.*[emphasis in both passages is mine]
With all due respect to Mssrs. Squith and Kilgore, dismissing the
Presidential Commission on Election Administration as “weak tea”
that “vanished without a single trace” does unnecessary violence to
the facts in service of an otherwise valid opinion.
1. The Salon piece seems to suggest the PCEA is invalid because of
the involvement of prominent GOP lawyer Ben Ginsberg – but it
completely overlooks (or doesn’t tell readers) that the other
co-chair was prominent Democratic lawyer Bob Bauer AND that their
leadership was designed to bring both parties to the table;
2. Washington Monthly’s characterization of PCEA as the “Lines
Commission” (which a quick Google search suggests first appeared in
the New Yorker in January 2014 and then not again until this week’s
column) completely misses the boat on the purpose of the Commission
– while its genesis was the long lines during the 2012 elections,
its report (and a year before that, its charge in the White House
executive order) was much more far-ranging than just how long people
waited to vote;
3. Moreover, the record already shows that the PCEA neither stalled
for time nor vanished without a trace – indeed, as we’ve seen across
the nation, the Commission’s full-throated bipartisan endorsement of
online voter registration has been cited by both parties in 2014 and
2015, with the result that a majority of states now either have or
are implementing OVR – a huge change from the/status quo ante PCEA/.
The bottom line? The PCEA worked – not by deflecting attention,
stalling for time or serving as a cover for someone’s partisan
agenda. It worked because elections are already better across
America because of the Commission’s report and findings – and the
continued work of Commissioners long after their formal service expired.
In short, if you think Rick Hasen and I are wrong about our
frustration with a partisan tack on election reform, that’s fine –
political junkies and election geeks have different areas of
emphasis (or em-FA-sis, as my grandmother liked to say) and we’ll
have to disagree. There are lots of things to dislike about the
current state of election policy and we can all hope that things
will improve, whether through political change or bipartisan grunt work.
But you’re not entitled to your own facts – the PCEA was and is a
huge success, and suggesting otherwise in the face of substantial
evidence to the contrary is just silly. Indeed, I’d be willing to
bet that the PCEA has a longer and more lasting impact on election
policy than any speech by any presidential candidate during the 2016
cycle.
And while the politics-driven silly season in election policy may
have just begun – a little earlier this time than most – it doesn’t
erase the fact that it’s possible to make progress outside of the
partisan process.
You do you, political people. We election geeks will still be here
getting it done.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73346&title=%E2%80%9CDon%E2%80%99t%20Be%20Silly%20%E2%80%93%20THE%20PCEA%20WORKED%3A%20A%20Rejoinder%20to%20Some%20Critics%20of%20Hasen%E2%80%99s%20Slate%20Piece%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,PCEA (Bauer-Ginsberg Commission)
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=79>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Mr. First Amendment” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73344>
Posted onJune 10, 2015 8:27 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73344>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ron Collins
<http://concurringopinions.com/archives/2015/06/fan-63-first-amendment-news-cj-roberts-mr-first-amendment-the-trend-continues.html>on
CJ Roberts. cf Williams-Yulee.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73344&title=%E2%80%9CMr.%20First%20Amendment%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
WaPo SCOTUS Reporter Bob Barnes on the Court Notes Surprise of the
Chief’s Williams-Yulee Opinion <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73342>
Posted onJune 10, 2015 8:20 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73342>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Barnes
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/06/10/qa-with-washington-post-supreme-court-reporter-robert-barnes/>:
*What’s been the biggest surprise for you so far this term?*
Two things:
The interaction among the justices during the lethal injection oral
arguments was as tendentious as I’ve ever seen. There was such
infighting that Roberts granted the advocates additional time to
make their arguments without interruption. The court spends an
outsized portion of its time on death penalty cases, and there is
clearly some bad blood between the justices.
The other is that Roberts wrote the court’s opinion (Williams-Yulee
v. Florida Bar) upholding a Florida prohibition on judicial
candidates personally asking for campaign contributions. Just about
every question and comment he made during oral arguments pointed in
the other direction. It is a good reminder that those sessions are
not always predictive.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73342&title=WaPo%20SCOTUS%20Reporter%20Bob%20Barnes%20on%20the%20Court%20Notes%20Surprise%20of%20the%20Chief%E2%80%99s%20Williams-Yulee%20Opinion&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,judicial
elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Clinton off-base on Ohio voting rule”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73340>
Posted onJune 10, 2015 8:13 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73340>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Columbus Dispatch
<http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2015/06/09/1-clinton-off-base-on-ohio-voting-rules.html>editorial:
All presidential politics aside, Gov. John Kasich is more than
justified in calling Hillary Clinton’s complaints about Ohio voting
laws “demagoguery” and “silliness.”
Like many Democrats, Clinton continues to hammer Ohio for a modest
scaling-back of early-absentee-voting hours, mischaracterizing it as
a wholesale attack on voting rights, despite the fact that Ohio has
among the most-generous early-voting laws in the country.
This calculated and intellectually dishonest push has taken a turn
for the ridiculous, with Clinton now calling for a national
early-voting standard of at least 20 days — which is nice, but in
Ohio, 20 days would be a reduction from the current, 28-day period.
I’m surprised the editorial doesn’t mentionthe new
lawsuit<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72382>brought by Clinton’s lawyer,
Marc Elias, which among other things attacks the cutback /to /28 days of
early voting.
Does anyone know if any election reform groups are joining in supporting
that litigation, or the new Elias-led litigation inWisconsin
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72945>? The Ohio suit was brought after
voting rights groupsrecently settled
<http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2015/04/aclu_secretary_of_state_jon_hu.html>a
similar lawsuit.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73340&title=%E2%80%9CClinton%20off-base%20on%20Ohio%20voting%20rule%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
News from Ohio: “Senate moving to approve online voter registration”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73338>
Posted onJune 10, 2015 7:59 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73338>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Columbus Dispatch
<http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/06/10/online_registration.html>:
Senate Republican leaders want to see online voter registration pass
by the end of June.
Ohio currently allows voters to update their registrations online,
but full online registration is not available. The Senate Government
Oversight and Reform Committee is expected to vote on the bill next
week, after hearing from a variety of supporters today.
Several witnesses, including Secretary of State Jon Husted, a
leading proponent of online voter registration, stressed similar
themes: it reduces errors when compared to data keyed in by hand,
saves money, makes the system more secure and does little or nothing
to change the political makeup of the voting electorate.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73338&title=News%20from%20Ohio%3A%20%E2%80%9CSenate%20moving%20to%20approve%20online%20voter%20registration%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,voter registration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>
“The IRS can still silence political dissent: Column”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73336>
Posted onJune 10, 2015 7:57 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73336>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Allison Hayward
oped<http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/06/09/tax-regulation-irs-political-organizations-column/28477359/>for
USA Today:
Two years ago, Lois Lerner of the IRSrevealed
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/07/lois-lerner-irs_n_5107596.html>that
it unfairly targeted and delayed Tea Party applications for tax
exemption. While the IRS has apologized and promised reform, the
agencyhas not fixed
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/why-the-irs-scandals-make-it-hard-to-fix-the-irs-20130606>the
vague rules that allowed this scandal to happen. As we enter the
2016 election cycle, political activists remain in danger of
selective IRS audits, penalties and approvals.
As troubling as this is, we have seen this before. The tax
regulation of non-profit advocacy groups has not had a happy
history. One pattern repeats: Congress passes a tax law, often to
score short-term political points. The IRS then interprets the law
aggressively, often against groups with controversial views. Federal
courts may soften that blow case by case. Eventually, Congress
passes another law and this cycle starts again.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73336&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20IRS%20can%20still%20silence%20political%20dissent%3A%20Column%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,tax law
and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
“Corporations Open Up About Political Spending”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73334>
Posted onJune 10, 2015 7:55 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73334>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT Economic Scene
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/business/corporations-open-up-about-political-spending.html?_r=1>column
by Eduardo Porter.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73334&title=%E2%80%9CCorporations%20Open%20Up%20About%20Political%20Spending%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
Think Progress Responds to GAB Spokesperson on WI Voter ID Story
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73332>
Posted onJune 10, 2015 7:49 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73332>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Now following up on GAB Responds to Think Progress on WI Voter ID
Funding Question <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73318>, Think Progress
sends along the following response:
Last Wednesday, as part of our ongoing coverage of voting rights
across the country, our reporter attended the GAB’s voter ID
workshop in Milwaukee and took careful notes. She was the only
reporter present. Mr. Magney was not present, but insists we
misquoted his colleague, writing, “Meagan would not have made that
statement.” He first demanded that we pull the entire article, then
pressured us to change the quotes.
It’s very possible that Ms. Wolfe misspoke, but we stand by our
reporting.
We have offered to add an additional statement from the GAB in the
piece but did not receive one.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73332&title=Think%20Progress%20Responds%20to%20GAB%20Spokesperson%20on%20WI%20Voter%20ID%20Story&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
“It’s Nothing Personal: The Decline of the Incumbency Advantage in
US House Elections” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73330>
Posted onJune 9, 2015 7:36 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73330>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
New Gary Jacobson
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/681670?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents>in
the /Journal of Politics/. Here is the abstract:
With little fanfare, the electoral advantage enjoyed by US
representatives has fallen over the past several elections to levels
not seen since the 1950s. The incumbency advantage has diminished in
conjunction with an increase in party loyalty, straight-ticket
voting, and president-centered electoral nationalization, products
of the widening and increasingly coherent partisan divisions in the
American electorate. Consequently, House incumbents now have a much
harder time retaining districts that lean toward the rival party.
Democrats had been the main beneficiaries of the denationalization
of electoral politics that had enabled the incumbency advantage to
grow, and they have thus been the main victims of the reemergence of
a more party-centered electoral process. Republicans enjoy a
long-standing structural advantage in the distribution of partisans
across districts, so this trend has strengthened their grip on the
House even as they have become less competitive in contests for the
presidency.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73330&title=%E2%80%9CIt%E2%80%99s%20Nothing%20Personal%3A%20The%20Decline%20of%20the%20Incumbency%20Advantage%20in%20US%20House%20Elections%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,political
parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,political polarization
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>
Kobach Given “Persecuting” Power over Elections in Kansas
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73328>
Posted onJune 9, 2015 4:51 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73328>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Delicious typo
<http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/mary-sanchez/article23617330.html>:
Usually, people say it’s a photo that’s worth a thousand words.
But in Kansas politics, everything is upside down these days. So it
was the accompanying flawed caption, not the photo of Gov. Sam
Brownback signing a new law Monday, that had people musing.
“… after the signing of Senate Bill 34, a bill that grants
persecuting power to the Secretary of State for cases of voter fraud.”
Persecuting. That’ll probably be accurate.
Kris Kobach has coveted the legal right to prosecute voter fraud for
years. He fervently believes such abuse is rampant. Facts have never
borne out the contention. Neither have his own actions.In February,
the Associated Press
proved<http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2015/feb/10/prosecutors-question-kobach-claims-voter-fraud-kan/>that,
contrary to his claims, he’d never forwarded any cases of suspected
fraud for prosecution to the Kansas attorney general.
Now it’s Kobach’s turn. He’s been empowered by legislators who
unwisely thought it prudent to give him prosecutorial power.
But he’ll need to prove charges, and not with innuendo, but with
indisputable facts showing intent. Kobach will have to make
distinctions between actual fraud and what is merely a mistake or
technology gone awry.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73328&title=Kobach%20Given%20%E2%80%9CPersecuting%E2%80%9D%20Power%20over%20Elections%20in%20Kansas&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,fraudulent fraud squad
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Super PAC backing Jeb Bush unlikely to hit $100 million by end of
June” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73326>
Posted onJune 9, 2015 4:48 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73326>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/super-pac-backing-jeb-bush-unlikely-to-hit-100-million-by-end-of-june/2015/06/09/f5f0d5a2-0ef1-11e5-a0dc-2b6f404ff5cf_story.html>on
the latest failure of the shock and awe approach to the Republican
nomination.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73326&title=%E2%80%9CSuper%20PAC%20backing%20Jeb%20Bush%20unlikely%20to%20hit%20%24100%20million%20by%20end%20of%20June%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
SCOTUS Will Consider Whether to Take Kobach v EAC Voting Case at Its
June 25 Conference <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73321>
Posted onJune 9, 2015 4:05 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73321>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Docket
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/14-1164.htm>.
If it is likely to take the case, it may get put over to a second
conference for continued vetting—perhaps over or at the end of the
summer? Or maybe we wil know by the end of the term.
Here <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72962>is my earlier post on what’s
at stake.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73321&title=SCOTUS%20Will%20Consider%20Whether%20to%20Take%20Kobach%20v%20%20EAC%20Voting%20Case%20at%20Its%20June%2025%20Conference&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
GAB Responds to Think Progress on WI Voter ID Funding Question
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73318>
Posted onJune 9, 2015 2:30 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73318>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Following up on my post, WI Has Inadequate Funding for Voter ID
Education Campaign <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73302>, GAB public
information officer Reid Magney reached out to say that he had issues
with the facts as reported in theThink Progress
piece<http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/06/08/3667026/wisconsin-voters-feel-screwed-new-voting-restrictions/>I
linked to. He has usedGenius <http://genius.com/>to annotate the piece,
pointing out what he sees as problems with it. You can view the
annotation (without using Genius)here
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/ThinkProgress-annotation.pdf>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73318&title=GAB%20Responds%20to%20Think%20Progress%20on%20WI%20Voter%20ID%20Funding%20Question&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
Pushback on Pushback and More Pushback on My Clinton Voting Wars
Column <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73316>
Posted onJune 9, 2015 12:51 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73316>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
So a number of people in the election reform community have written me
in great support ofmy /Slate/column
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/06/hillary_clinton_is_politicizing_voting_rights_the_democratic_frontrunner.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top>after
Imentioned the general drubbing <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73306>I
was receiving from others. The argument from these folks is that on the
ground in the states, Clinton’s comments are making achieving modest
efforts at bipartisan election reform harder. I’m also hearing that the
comments are turning off some Republicans who otherwise might have been
amenable to universal voter registration.
But the pushback from the left is pretty strong:
Elias Iquith
<http://www.salon.com/2015/06/09/elite_pundits_have_a_problem_with_democracy_their_new_hillary_clinton_attack_removes_the_mask/>at
Salon: “Yet out of all the columns handwringing and concern trolling
over Clinton’s recent liberal bent, I’m not sure any have been quite as
wrongheaded, naive and downright weird asthis one
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/06/hillary_clinton_is_politicizing_voting_rights_the_democratic_frontrunner.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top>from
UC Irvine professor Richard L. Hasen, which criticizes the likely
presidential nominee for advocating that more people, regardless of
their politics, be allowed to vote.”
Ed
Kilgore<http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_06/is_hrc_alienating_the_tiny_ban055990.php>at
the Washington Monthly: “So we’re left with the thought that Democratic
advocates for election reform who are in the political arena at the
highest level should either shut up about it until such time as
Republicans decide to change their minds for their own reasons, or maybe
talk about it quietly and with no hint that advocates might be willing
to make it a partisan issue! Talk about a blind alley. Interestingly
enough, Hasen is indicating he’srethinking his position
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73306>based on the negative reaction he
received for his/Slate/piece from people with whom he normally agrees.
That’s a good idea.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73316&title=Pushback%20on%20Pushback%20and%20More%20Pushback%20on%20My%20Clinton%20Voting%20Wars%20Column&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Tony Podesta, Lobbyist and Dem Fundraiser, Decries Lobbyist
Fundraisers” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73312>
Posted onJune 9, 2015 10:19 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73312>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WFB.
<http://freebeacon.com/politics/tony-podesta-lobbyist-and-dem-fundraiser-decries-lobbyist-fundraisers/>
“I’m in favor of banning not just lobbyist bundling but lobbyist
contributions,” Podesta told the Center for Public Integrity
<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/06/04/17445/senator-would-limit-lobbyist-money-fueled-liberal-allies>last
week for a story about Senate legislation to limit campaign
“bundling” by registered lobbyists.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73312&title=%E2%80%9CTony%20Podesta%2C%20Lobbyist%20and%20Dem%20Fundraiser%2C%20Decries%20Lobbyist%20Fundraisers%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,lobbying
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
Politifact Rates “Mostly True” Three Clinton Statements in Her
Voting Rights Speech <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73310>
Posted onJune 9, 2015 10:17 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73310>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here.
<http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jun/09/fact-checking-hillary-clinton-voting-rights/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73310&title=Politifact%20Rates%20%E2%80%9CMostly%20True%E2%80%9D%20Three%20Clinton%20Statements%20in%20Her%20Voting%20Rights%20Speech&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Wisconsin Republicans propose abolishing the Legislative Audit
Bureau” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73308>
Posted onJune 9, 2015 9:24 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73308>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
New controvers
<http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/wisconsin-republicans-propose-abolishing-the-legislative-audit-bureau/article_a9b266c6-f52e-59fd-bebb-2bd13e7add6c.html>y
in Wisconsin and leading reform groups areunhappy
<http://www.wisdc.org/pr060915.php>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73308&title=%E2%80%9CWisconsin%20Republicans%20propose%20abolishing%20the%20Legislative%20Audit%20Bureau%E2%80%9D&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/20150610/4ef26e69/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/20150610/4ef26e69/attachment.png>
View list directory