[EL] ELB News and Commentary 6/12/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Fri Jun 12 07:38:56 PDT 2015
“Under Threat of Lawsuit, Garden Grove Inches Toward District
Elections” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73452>
Posted onJune 12, 2015 7:30 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73452>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Voice of OC reports.
<http://voiceofoc.org/2015/06/under-threat-of-lawsuit-garden-grove-inches-toward-district-elections/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73452&title=%E2%80%9CUnder%20Threat%20of%20Lawsuit%2C%20Garden%20Grove%20Inches%20Toward%20District%20Elections%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“FEC has the power, but doesn’t make the tough calls”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73450>
Posted onJune 12, 2015 7:27 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73450>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Karl SandstromCNN oped.
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/12/opinions/sandstrom-fec/index.html>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73450&title=%E2%80%9CFEC%20has%20the%20power%2C%20but%20doesn%E2%80%99t%20make%20the%20tough%20calls%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,federal
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>
“Political Consultant To Be Sentenced For Violating Campaign Finance
Law” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73448>
Posted onJune 12, 2015 7:03 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73448>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Peter Overby reports
<http://northernpublicradio.org/post/political-consultant-be-sentenced-violating-campaign-finance-law>for
NPR.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73448&title=%E2%80%9CPolitical%20Consultant%20To%20Be%20Sentenced%20For%20Violating%20Campaign%20Finance%20Law%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,chicanery
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
“Holder Rips ‘Disconnected’ Supreme Court Ruling on Voting Rights”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73446>
Posted onJune 11, 2015 6:48 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73446>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Mike Sacks f
<http://www.nationallawjournal.com/legaltimes/id=1202729124513/Holder-Rips-Disconnected-Supreme-Court-Ruling-on-Voting-Rights?cmp=share_twitter&slreturn=20150511214641>or
BLT:
“Abetted by a wrongly decided, factually inaccurate, and
disconnected Supreme Court decision, too many in this country are
trying too hard to make it too difficult for the people to express
their views,” Holder said, referring to/Shelby County v. Holder/,
the*2013 decision
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf>*that
invalidated a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.
Holder’s comments were part of his keynote address at the opening
night gala of the American Constitution Society’s annual convention
in Washington. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is expected to speak on
Saturday night.
Without naming names or political parties, Holder said, “certain
states, with certain legislators, and certain governors,” have
pushed voter identification laws to protect voter fraud for which,
the former AG said, there is “no statistical proof.”
“One party has decided to lash itself to short-term political
expediency and put itself on the wrong side of history,” he continued.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73446&title=%E2%80%9CHolder%20Rips%20%E2%80%98Disconnected%E2%80%99%20Supreme%20Court%20Ruling%20on%20Voting%20Rights%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Lawmakers, ACLU protest 30-day residency voting requirement in New
Hampshire” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73444>
Posted onJune 11, 2015 6:43 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73444>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP
<http://www.reformer.com/news/ci_28298017/lawmakers-aclu-protest-30-day-residency-voting-requirement>:
Gov. Maggie Hassan is likely to veto legislation that would require
people to live in New Hampshire for 30 days before they can vote in
the state.
Hassan’s office said Thursday she worries the bill will restrict
people’s constitutional right to vote. The comments from her office
came after a coalition of Democratic lawmakers, election workers and
the American Civil Liberties Union called the bill unconstitutional….
Supporters of the bill say the measure would eliminate voter fraud,
including so-called drive-by voting by people who register to vote
on Election Day when they don’t live in the state. People domiciled
in New Hampshire can register on the day they vote. Secretary of
State Bill Gardner backs the bill and has said he believes drive-by
voting is a problem.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73444&title=%E2%80%9CLawmakers%2C%20ACLU%20protest%2030-day%20residency%20voting%20requirement%20in%20New%20Hampshire%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,residency
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=38>
Voting Rights Advocate Concerned About Elias Lawsuits
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73441>
Posted onJune 11, 2015 4:37 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73441>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I had heard grumblings about theset of lawsuits
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72945>Marc Elias has beenfiling
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73418>before today, but now I have an
email I have permission to republish (without attribution):
I’d like to keep this email anonymous but wanted to send over a few
thoughts on the cases Marc Elias is filing.
In addition to these cases being long shots and the points you made
in your Slate article there a real risk that they will actually do a
huge amount of harm and sever the last remaining thread holding up
Section 2. All of these cases deal with laws that are much less
restrictive than in other states and don’t have tangible real harm
to voters. In Virginia, the ID law is nothing compared to the Texas
ID law and IDs actually are readily available without supporting
documentation. Ohio has early voting while the two most populous
states in the country do not and the settlement Elias is challenging
was negotiated by the leading voting rights group in the country.
The voting rights community is concerned that that SCOTUS will use
these cases to essentially wipe out Section 2 and removing the few
teeth it has left. An adverse decision in these cases would give
states a blank check to pass truly harmful laws without any vehicle
for opponents to challenge them. These cases could even give the
Court a good fact pattern to hold that these voting disputes are all
political in nature and not attempts to harm voters of color. There
is also a concern here about a sweetheart deal. If the State refuses
to litigate the case or agrees to settle it sets a terrible
precedent. Voting rights groups closely watch lawsuits filed by
Judicial Watch and other groups to see if Republican election
officials enter into backroom deals to purge the voter rolls. To
allow this to happen here could really set these Judicial Watch
efforts into motion.
Marc Elias may be an expert on partisan election law but he isn’t an
expert on voting rights. Many of the laws he is challenging do not
have an actual harmful impact on voters. If they did, the voting
rights groups would absolutely support the risk. To many in the
community these lawsuits are reckless and completely shortsighted.
He is risking destroying the last remaining voting rights
protections for future elections just to drum up support for one.
These concerns are expressed throughout the voting rights community
in whispers.
As I said, I heard rumblings about this before today, but I don’t know
how widespread this sentiment is. I do know that Elias’s Ohio suit was
brought after a big settlement between Ohio and the ACLU, and the
Wisconsin suit was brought after the ACLU’s controversial decision to
seek cert. in the 7th Circuit voter id case (cert. was denied). So far
I have not seen other organizations joining the Ohio or Wisconsin suits
brought by Elias.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73441&title=Voting%20Rights%20Advocate%20Concerned%20About%20Elias%20Lawsuits&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Bloomberg Law: Supreme Court Justice Celebrity (Audio)”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73439>
Posted onJune 11, 2015 4:24 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73439>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
My interview with June Grasso
<http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/Politics/Law/v56IgZC_pj8E.mp3> (mp3):
*
Bloomberg Law: Supreme Court Justice Celebrity (Audio)
Jun 11, 2015
Richard Hasen, a professor at University of California Irvine School
of Law, discusses the celebrity status of Supreme Court justices,
who are scheduling interviews and appearances more than ever. He
speaks with June Grasso on Bloomberg Radio’s “Bloomberg Law.”
Download
<http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/Politics/Law/v56IgZC_pj8E.mp3>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73439&title=%E2%80%9CBloomberg%20Law%3A%20Supreme%20Court%20Justice%20Celebrity%20%28Audio%29%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inCelebrity Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=109>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“All’s Well That Evenwel” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73437>
Posted onJune 11, 2015 4:14 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73437>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I just love this headline so much, I hope to revive it in the event that
the Supreme Court rejects the one person, one vote challenge next term.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73437&title=%E2%80%9CAll%E2%80%99s%20Well%20That%20Evenwel%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Marc Elias Comments on New VA Voter ID Suit
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73435>
Posted onJune 11, 2015 4:13 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73435>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/va-democrats-file-court-challenge-to-restrictive-voting-laws/2015/06/11/9cb23a3e-106e-11e5-adec-e82f8395c032_story.html>:
In addition, Elias is behind challenges to Virginia’s elections maps
at the state and congressional levels, which could force the state
to redraw district boundaries this fall.
“I have a lot of clients. I have brought other lawsuits in Virginia
…” Elias said. “So it doesn’t surprise me that the speaker and I are
on opposite sides of the law here as well.”
Elias declined to comment onSoros’s role
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/05/bankroller-of-democratic-voting-rights-cases-george-soros/>,
which was first reported by the New York Times.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73435&title=Marc%20Elias%20Comments%20on%20New%20VA%20Voter%20ID%20Suit&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
“Virginia Is Latest Front in Democrats’ Voting Rights Battle”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73433>
Posted onJune 11, 2015 2:10 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73433>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Maggie Haberman report
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/11/newest-front-in-democratic-voting-rights-battle-virginia/>s
for the NYT.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73433&title=%E2%80%9CVirginia%20Is%20Latest%20Front%20in%20Democrats%E2%80%99%20Voting%20Rights%20Battle%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
Ohio SOS Husted and Rep. Clyde Twitter War Over Voting Covered by
MSNBC <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73431>
Posted onJune 11, 2015 2:04 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73431>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Zack Roth
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/boost-clinton-efforts-expand-voting-access-advance>:
On Wednesday afternoon, State Rep. Kathleen Clyde, a Democrat, was
notified on Twitter that she’d been blocked by an account in the
name of Secretary of State Jon Husted. The move came after Husted, a
Republican, responded defiantly to Clinton’s criticism of Ohio’s
voting policies, among other states, in her speech. Husted,
rebutting Clinton, called the state “the gold standard” for election
administration.
That led to aseries of tweets <https://twitter.com/KathleenClyde>by
Clyde Wednesday mocking the “gold standard” claim. Clyde accused
Husted of improperly purging the vote rolls, and failing to mail
absentee ballots to around 1 million eligible voters just because
they hadn’t voted recently. And she noted, accurately, that Husted
has waged a years-long campaign to reduce early voting.
Husted and Clyde also have been sparring over how and whether to
advance some of the expansive voting policies Clinton proposed.
Though he’s gained a national reputation as an advocate of
restrictive voting policies, Husted has long been an advocate of
online registration, andhe testified
<https://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/mediaCenter/2015/2015-06-10.aspx>Wednesday
in support of a Republican-sponsored online registration bill,
calling it “a common sense reform that is long overdue.” The bill is
expected to pass the Senate, but its prospects in the House are far
less clear.
But in
aletter<http://www.ohiohouse.gov/kathleen-clyde/press/rep-clyde-urges-secretary-husted-to-switch-on-full-online-voter-registration>sent
the same day, Clyde wrote that Husted doesn’t need new legislation
to implement online registration. She said it’s already in place,
but it currently only accepts registration updates, not new
registrations. All that’s needed to change that is for Husted to
“switch on” full online registration.
“He’s been talking about this for years. How about some action?”
said Clyde in an interview. “This is the type of thing that we
should get up and running well before the presidential election in
Ohio.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73431&title=Ohio%20SOS%20Husted%20and%20Rep.%20Clyde%20Twitter%20War%20Over%20Voting%20Covered%20by%20MSNBC&description=>
Posted inThe Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“The Party as Database” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73429>
Posted onJune 11, 2015 1:39 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73429>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Jack Balkin <http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-party-as-database.html>:
Last year, in my essayThe Last Days of Disco: Why the American
Political System is Dysfunctional
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2403508>, I
explained that modern American political parties were turning into
databases connected to fundraising operations. The two major
political parties, and in particular, the Republican Party have been
growing weaker because party organizations can be supplanted by
wealthy contributors who either have access to party databases or
have developed databases of their own….
This prediction appears to be coming true
<https://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-koch-brothers-and-the-republican-party-go-to-121193159491.html>,
as evidenced by the struggle between the Koch brothers and the
Republican National Committee over access to data.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73429&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Party%20as%20Database%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,political parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>
“Anti-Hillary Clinton Group Refuses to Change Name, Defying FEC
Order” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73427>
Posted onJune 11, 2015 1:35 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73427>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Byron Tau
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/11/anti-hillary-clinton-group-refuses-to-change-name-defying-fec-order/>for
the WSJ Wash. Wire.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73427&title=%E2%80%9CAnti-Hillary%20Clinton%20Group%20Refuses%20to%20Change%20Name%2C%20Defying%20FEC%20Order%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,federal
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>
“Why Is John Roberts Siding With the Supreme Court’s Liberals?”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73425>
Posted onJune 11, 2015 1:17 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73425>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Adam Winkler writes
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/06/john_roberts_isn_t_a_reliable_conservative_vote_the_chief_justice_is_siding.html>at
Slate.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73425&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20Is%20John%20Roberts%20Siding%20With%20the%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%99s%20Liberals%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Breaking: Clinton Lawyer Elias Files New Voting Suit in Virginia
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73418>
Posted onJune 11, 2015 12:14 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73418>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
ViaMaggie Haberman
<https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/609068293962481664>comes news of a
new case filed by Marc Elias (the latest in aseries of cases
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72945>).
The suit is Lee v. Virginia Board of Elections, and this time the
Democratic Party is a party. You can find the complaintat this link
<https://www.scribd.com/doc/268403997/Lee-v-Virginia-Board-of-Elections>.
The suit raises both constitutional claims and claims under Section 2 of
the Voting Rights Act focused mostly on Virginia’s voter identification
law (although there is mention of long lines at polling places,
presumably to be exacerbated by the i.d. requirement).
The Virginia lawwas
precleared<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/justice-department-upholds-virginia-voter-id-law/2012/08/20/76d609f6-eb2a-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_blog.html>by
the Obama Justice Department, when Section 5 was still in effect, but it
has since been mademore stringent.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/virginia-elections-board-makes-voter-id-requirements-more-stringent/2014/08/07/331d625e-1dbe-11e4-82f9-2cd6fa8da5c4_story.html>
As with the claims brought by Elias in the WI and OH cases, I deem this
a longshot case, which is probably as much about politics and
highlighting attempts at voter suppression as it is about the legal claim.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73418&title=Breaking%3A%20Clinton%20Lawyer%20Elias%20Files%20New%20Voting%20Suit%20in%20Virginia&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
“How black voters could determine the 2016 election”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73416>
Posted onJune 11, 2015 11:50 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73416>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Fix reports.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/11/how-black-voters-could-determine-the-2016-election/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73416&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20black%20voters%20could%20determine%20the%202016%20election%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
The President Should Talk MORE About Pending Cases Before #SCOTUS
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73414>
Posted onJune 11, 2015 11:23 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73414>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I’ve alreadygotten into trouble
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73306>once this week for an unpopular
opinion (insome quarters <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73316>) so I
should quit while I’m behind. But here goes.
Over on Twitter, Jonathan Adler and I have been debating whether there
is anything improper to give public comments about cases pending before
the Court. (Jonathan provides backgroundin this post,
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/11/presidential-comments-on-pending-supreme-court-decisions/>and
notes it appears that President Obama talking about the Obamacare case
after argument while it is pending is unusual).
Jonathan thinks there is something unseemly or improper about it, citing
Larry Tribe’s comments that such comments, even if they don’t influence
the Court, can create public cynicism about the process.
I’m skeptical that the President’s comments would do anything to
contribute to the already high public cynicism about the political
process. The public is already plenty cynical. I don’t think such
comments would undermine the legitimacy of the Court. It is not like
Justices choosing to speak about pending cases, which raises different
issues.
Nor do I believe that such comments would “bully” the Supreme Court into
deciding a case in a certain way (an argument I don’t think Jonathan is
making, but which plenty of people made before the last Obamacare
argument, where there was a full Court press to buck up Chief Justice
Roberts’ in conservative opinion columns—an effort which did not work).
The Court is a co-equal branch of government, and can take it.
So that’s the reason not to /oppose/the President speaking on cases
pending before SCOTUS. What’s the /affirmative case/to speak?
The public knows woefully little about the workings on the Supreme Court
(a problem in part of the Court’s own making and desire). On the most
controversial cases, it is fair to say the Court is making policy, not
deciding abstract issues of law. By speaking about the issues, the
President who has the bully pulpit educates the public on the importance
of the Supreme Court, the power that they hold and, in appropriate
cases, disagreement with what the Court has done or is likely to do.
So the impulse was right to call out SCOTUS in the state of the union on
/Citizens United/. The problem was not that the President addressed the
issue but thathe made incorrect statements
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69833>about the effect of the decision.
We need more attention to the controversial opinions of the Court. And
the President is an important person to bring such attention.
UPDATE: In an update to Jonathan’s post, he says his issue is timing. He
writes: “My concern, like that expressed by Professor Tribe above, is
about the nature and timing of Presidential comments.” I don’t think
timing matters, if one takes the position, as I do, that timing neither
undermines public confidence nor the legitimacy of the Court, and
believes that the President cannot bully the Justices. Why shouldn’t
people know that the Supreme Court might do something outrageous (as
intaking away millions of people’s healthcare
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/07/d_c_circuit_and_4th_circuit_obamacare_rulings_the_perils_of_following_scalia.html>in
the King v. Burwell case–that last little bit was especially for
Jonathan, with a smiling emoji).
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73414&title=The%20President%20Should%20Talk%20MORE%20About%20Pending%20Cases%20Before%20%23SCOTUS&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Why Americans should vote less often”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73412>
Posted onJune 11, 2015 10:12 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73412>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Chuck Lane column
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/vote-less-to-vote-more/2015/06/10/12e0d014-0f82-11e5-adec-e82f8395c032_story.html?hpid=z3>.
I’d add to Chuck’s point the point that Rick Pildes made a while back:
we vote for /more offices/than other democracies too, which contributes
to ballot fatigue.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73412&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20Americans%20should%20vote%20less%20often%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted invoting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
“A Voter Fraud Witch Hunt in Kansas”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73410>
Posted onJune 11, 2015 10:06 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73410>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Berman on Kobach
<http://www.thenation.com/blog/209705/voter-fraud-witch-hunt-kansas>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73410&title=%E2%80%9CA%20Voter%20Fraud%20Witch%20Hunt%20in%20Kansas%E2%80%9D&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>
“The rise of the machines; Many states, localities get new voting
equipment for 2016″ <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73408>
Posted onJune 11, 2015 9:39 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73408>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
That’s the lead story in this week’sElectionline Weekly
<http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73408&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20rise%20of%20the%20machines%3B%20Many%20states%2C%20localities%20get%20new%20voting%20equipment%20for%202016%E2%80%B3&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,voting technology
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40>
Adam Smith Sympathizes with RNC Complaints About Koch Big Money
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73406>
Posted onJune 11, 2015 9:38 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73406>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Every Voice <http://everyvoice.org/posts/hey-rnc-call>:
The massive political network of the billionaire Koch brothers has
made a surprising new enemy: The Republican National Committee
(RNC). “The RNC is now openly arguing, however, that the Kochs’
political operation is trying to control the Republican Party’s
master voter file, and to gain influence over — some even say
control of — the GOP,”according to a report in Yahoo News today
<https://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-koch-brothers-and-the-republican-party-go-to-121193159491.html?soc_src=unv-sh&soc_trk=tw>.
RNC Chief of Staff, sounding a lot like me, said, “I think it’s very
dangerous and wrong to allow a group of very strong, well-financed
individuals who have no accountability to anyone to have control
over who gets access to the data when, why and how.”
It’s a pretty delicious sentiment—that a few unaccountable
billionaires shouldn’t get to control things in elections–coming
from a group
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/09/rnc-campaign-finance_n_5115266.html>that
has fought contribution limits, opposed efforts to address Citizens
United v. FEC, and whose chair has even questioned the need for
political spending disclosure.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73406&title=Adam%20Smith%20Sympathizes%20with%20RNC%20Complaints%20About%20Koch%20Big%20Money&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
Pete Peterson at Zocalo Talks About Running for CA Secretary of
State <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73404>
Posted onJune 11, 2015 9:35 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73404>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Peterson
<http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2015/06/11/an-outsiders-guide-to-running-and-losing-a-california-election/ideas/nexus/>:
Also favoring the insider—particularly in California—is the
substantial presence of the “third house”—a vast network of
associations, corporations, and unions with lobbying interests in
Sacramento. Most Californians have never heard of the California
Infill Builders Federation PAC, the Technet California Political
Action Committee, or the California Refuse Recycling Council North
PAC, but these groups (and dozens more) contributed hundreds of
thousands of dollars to my opponent.
Why are these organizations interested in the secretary of state’s
race? Viewed in the best light, these contributions come through
standing relationships. In many ways, this is the primary skill of a
successful career politician—an ability to make particular kinds of
political relationships, aligning personal positions on issues with
the financial benefits of voting on them.
My opponent had built these relationships over eight years in
Sacramento as a state senator and the preceding seven years as a Los
Angeles city councilman—on issues ranging from plastic bag bans to
telecom legislation. A quick check of donations to his secretary of
state campaign reveals financial support from groups ranging from
the California Grocers Association to AT&T. (With all the talk these
days about “outside money” in politics, the only independent
expenditure in my race was a $170,000 project in support of my
opponent, initiated by the California Labor Federation—yet another
third house organization.)
This fundraising avenue is almost completely shut off for outsiders.
It’s not that I didn’t try. Several times I was told by third house
leaders I met with that I presented an “interesting campaign,” but
because the organization “had a piece of legislation before my
opponent’s committee the next day,” they could not be seen
supporting my run with a donation.
I hoped some groups might open their wallets when my opponent termed
out of office after the close of the legislative term in August. But
then my staff and I were informed, “Your opponent has a lot of
friends who are not terming out. If we support you, we lose the
support of those friends.”
Ah, relationships.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73404&title=Pete%20Peterson%20at%20Zocalo%20Talks%20About%20Running%20for%20CA%20Secretary%20of%20State&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,election administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,election law biz
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>
“Ballot Talks: Delayed presidential bids and campaign finance
reform” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73402>
Posted onJune 11, 2015 9:31 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73402>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WHYY Radio Times
<http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/2015/06/11/ballot-talks-delayed-presidential-bids-and-campaign-finance-reform/>:
Ballot Talks: Delayed presidential bids and campaign finance
reform
*June 11, 2015*
*Hour 1*
*Guests: Paul Seamus Ryan, Nate Persily, Eric Lichtblau*
Jeb Bush said he’ll be announcing his bid for the 2016 election on
Monday. Scott Walker has yet to make his candidacy official. But is
there any doubt that Bush or Walker will be making a run for the
White House? Election watchdog groups say these tactics bend
campaign finance laws by allowing likely candidates more time to
raise unregulated money and coordinate through their super PACs. In
this week’s edition of Ballot Talks, what does election laws say
about “non-candidate” strategy? We’ll also discuss a recent poll
that shows most Americans are worried about money in politics and
want reform. And we’ll look at how the internet is changing
political campaigning. Guest host Mary Cummings-Jordan talks
with*PAUL SEAMUS RYAN*
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/team/paul-s-ryan>, senior
counsel at the Campaign Legal Center,*NATE PERSILY*
<https://www.law.stanford.edu/profile/nathaniel-persily>, Professor
of Law, Politics and Communication at Stanford University Law
School, and*ERIC LICHTBLAU*
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/eric_lichtblau/index.html>,
investigative reporter for the/New York Times./
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73402&title=%E2%80%9CBallot%20Talks%3A%20Delayed%20presidential%20bids%20and%20campaign%20finance%20reform%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
--
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/20150612/2c671430/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/20150612/2c671430/attachment.png>
View list directory