[EL] ELB News and Commentary 6/24/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Wed Jun 24 08:18:49 PDT 2015
Slate’s Supreme Court Breakfast Table Has Opened
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73730>
Posted onJune 24, 2015 8:17 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73730>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
It’s themost wonderful time
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2015/scotus_roundup/supreme_court_2015_king_v_burwell_and_obergefell_v_hodges_could_divide_the.html>of
the year.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73730&title=Slate%E2%80%99s%20Supreme%20Court%20Breakfast%20Table%20Has%20Opened&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Block That Metaphor Dep’t: Rent Seeking Edition
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73728>
Posted onJune 24, 2015 8:13 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73728>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
“We’re not real interested in climbing in bed with the corn lobby to
accuse the sugar industry of being prostitutes,” he said. “We oppose all
forms of corporate welfare.”
—James Davis from the Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, quoted by
WaPo, Exclusive: Corn refiners declare war on sugar, conservative groups
jump onboard
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/06/24/exclusive-corn-growers-declare-war-on-sugar-conservative-groups-jump-onboard/>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73728&title=Block%20That%20Metaphor%20Dep%E2%80%99t%3A%20Rent%20Seeking%20Edition&description=>
Posted inlobbying <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
More Thoughts on The UpShot’s Piece on Leftward Roberts Court Term
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73725>
Posted onJune 24, 2015 7:41 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73725>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Yesterday I wrote What is theSignificance of the Roberts Court’s
Relatively Liberal Term <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73696>?,
responding to NYT The UpShot’sThe Roberts Court’s Surprising Move
Leftward
<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/23/upshot/the-roberts-courts-surprising-move-leftward.html?abt=0002&abg=1&_r=0>.
Over at Balkinization,Joey Fishkin and Cary Franklin
<http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/06/what-was-the-question.html>are much
more critical, andDavid Strauss
<http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/06/what-we-can-learn-from-that-times-graph.html>offers
a valuable response.
As I told the Times, the same sex marriage and Obamacare cases loom so
large this term, that public thinking about how “liberal” the Court’s
term is will be strongly colored by how those decisions come out.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73725&title=More%20Thoughts%20on%20The%20UpShot%E2%80%99s%20Piece%20on%20Leftward%20Roberts%20Court%20Term&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Short Film About Victim of Texas Voter ID Law Shows Why We Need to
Pass The Voting Rights Advancement Act Being Introduced Today”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73723>
Posted onJune 24, 2015 7:37 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73723>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Release
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/news/press-releases/short-film-about-victim-texas-voter-id-law-shows-why-we-need-pass-voting-rights>:
Today, as Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. John Lewis (D-GA)
introduce the Voting Rights Advancement Act (VRAA) on the eve of the
second anniversary of/Shelby County v. Holder,/the Campaign Legal
Center is releasing ashort film
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u8MktrMoCU>focusing on a lifelong
voter disenfranchised by Texas’ voter photo ID law (SB 14). The
most restrictive and burdensome voter ID law in the nation, the
Texas law was rejected by the Department of Justice prior to
the/Shelby County/ruling and is a perfect example of why Congress
needs to pass new legislation to protect the rights of all citizens
to vote.
The new three and a half minute film produced by Firelight Media
traces the efforts of the Campaign Legal Center’s Voter ID Project
to assist Tony, a longtime registered Texas voter, to overcome the
many hurdles erected by the new law in order to obtain the photo ID
required by SB 14 in order to vote.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73723&title=%E2%80%9CShort%20Film%20About%20Victim%20of%20Texas%20Voter%20ID%20Law%20Shows%20Why%20We%20Need%20to%20Pass%20The%20Voting%20Rights%20Advancement%20Act%20Being%20Introduced%20Today%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
Bipartisan Members of Congress Want Live Audio of #SCOTUS
Announcements at End of Term <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73721>
Posted onJune 24, 2015 7:30 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73721>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
This
<https://quigley.house.gov/sites/quigley.house.gov/files/Bicameral%20Letter%20to%20Chief%20Justice%20Roberts%20on%20Live%20Audio,%206-23-15.pdf>should
be a no brainer.
And yet the Court continues to live in the 19th century.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73721&title=Bipartisan%20Members%20of%20Congress%20Want%20Live%20Audio%20of%20%23SCOTUS%20Announcements%20at%20End%20of%20Term&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Christie “Hiring for Super PAC” in Anticipation of 2016 Bid
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73719>
Posted onJune 23, 2015 4:57 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73719>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Do we have any more laws oncoordination
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/chris-christie-2016-bid-announcement-119354.html>?
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73719&title=Christie%20%E2%80%9CHiring%20for%20Super%20PAC%E2%80%9D%20in%20Anticipation%20of%202016%20Bid&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
Quote of the Day <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73716>
Posted onJune 23, 2015 4:11 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73716>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
“The fact of the matter is we have a Voting Rights Act; it is very strong.”
–Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), chair of House Judiciary
Committee,explaining his opposition
<http://www.roanoke.com/news/local/goodlatte-voting-rights-act-remains-strong-without-amendment/article_5bbff2ca-dae2-58ed-9930-f652b9317913.html>to
an updated Voting Rights Act.
(h/tZack Roth
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/new-bill-unveiled-restore-voting-rights-act>)
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73716&title=Quote%20of%20the%20Day&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>,VRAA
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=81>
Justice Alito’s Odd Failure to Act for Months in Birth Control Case
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73714>
Posted onJune 23, 2015 3:57 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73714>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Lyle Denniston
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/pressing-the-aca-birth-control-issue/#more-229463>:
The federal government’s top Supreme Court advocatemoved again
<http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Zubik-SG-second-letter-6-23-15.pdf>on
Tuesday to make sure that the Justices are keeping up with the
government’s success in heading off a round of new challenges to the
birth-control mandate in the Affordable Care Act. In the second
letter of its kind, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., sent
along a copy of a new decision — with the same outcome — this time,
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Instead of seeking to alert the full Court as he had done on May 21,
Verrilli asked that this notification go to Justice Samuel A. Alito,
Jr. It has been more than two months since Alito, on April 15,
blocked a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit with what had appeared at the time to be only a temporary
order. However, the order remains in effect, unchanged.
The April 15 order said that the Third Circuit’s ruling would be put
on hold until the federal government had filed a response to the
non-profits’ plea for delay. The government response was due five
days later. The order also went on to say that the delay would last
pending “further order” by him or the full Court. That kind of
language ordinarily signals that another order would be coming after
both sides had offered their views, although there is no guarantee
of such an additional order.
Because Alito apparently has not passed the issue along to his
colleagues, and has taken no action himself, it may be that the
order will be left in effect until the Court decides whether or not
to grant review of one of the developing cases on the issue. In the
Court’s previous decision on the birth-control controversy, a year
ago in the case of/Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores/, it dealt only
with the challenge to the mandate by for-profit businesses owned by
devoutly religious families. sparing them from having to provide the
coverage required by the ACA…
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73714&title=Justice%20Alito%E2%80%99s%20Odd%20Failure%20to%20Act%20for%20Months%20in%20Birth%20Control%20Case&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Ka-Ching! Sheldon Adelson and Fellow Billionaires Boost Republican
Senate” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73712>
Posted onJune 23, 2015 3:41 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73712>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bloomberg reports.
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-23/ka-ching-sheldon-adelson-and-fellow-billionaires-boost-republican-senate>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73712&title=%E2%80%9CKa-Ching%21%20Sheldon%20Adelson%20and%20Fellow%20Billionaires%20Boost%20Republican%20Senate%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“The Constrained Court” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73708>
Posted onJune 23, 2015 2:48 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73708>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
In/Democracy/,//Amanda Hollis-Brusky hasa well-done review
<http://www.democracyjournal.org/37/the-constrained-court.php>of*Injustices:
The Supreme Court’s History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting
the Afflicted <http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9781568584560-0>*By Ian
Millhiser. I don’t agree with all of Amanda’s observations on the Court
but this is well worth reading.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73708&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Constrained%20Court%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Judge Strikes Down California’s Ballot Initiative To Kill Gays”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73704>
Posted onJune 23, 2015 2:39 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73704>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
BuzzFeed reports
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/judge-strikes-down-californias-ballot-initiative-to-kill-gay#.wnYQVNybz>.
I haven’t seen any written opinion yet.
I am somewhat surprised given that courts in CA generally do not police
initiatives for substantive unconstitutionality unless they pass. More
when I can see an opinion.
UPDATE:
This may be the entire order
<https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CINbum6UAAAaB7o.png:large>, and it includes
information that the ballot proponent did not show up in court to defend it.
HERE
<http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article15394181.html>‘s
an earlier piece on whether courts can stop substantively
unconstitutional laws from circulating or appearing on the ballot.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73704&title=%E2%80%9CJudge%20Strikes%20Down%20California%E2%80%99s%20Ballot%20Initiative%20To%20Kill%20Gays%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted indirect democracy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>
Democrats Have Stronger Proposal to Amend Voting Rights Act, But
Huge Obstacles to Enacting It <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73702>
Posted onJune 23, 2015 2:31 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73702>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ari Berman has the scoop
<http://www.thenation.com/article/210673/congressional-democrats-introduce-ambitious-new-bill-restore-voting-rights-act>on
a new “Voting Rights Advancement Act” (not to be confused with the
earlier “Voting Rights Amendment Act”) to fix what many see are problems
with the Supreme Court’s gutting of the precelarance provisions two
years ago in the /Shelby County/case. “The legislation will be formally
introduced tomorrow by Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking
Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and leaders of the Black
Caucus, Hispanic Caucus and Asian Pacific American Caucus in the House.
Civil rights icon Representative John Lewis will be a co-sponsor.”
One key provision would recreate preclearance with a new coverage formula:
The Voting Rights Advancement Act restores Section 5 of the VRA by
requiring states with fifteen voting violations over the past
twenty-five years, or ten violations if one was statewide, to submit
future election changes for federal approval. This new formula would
initially cover thirteen states: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona,
California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, New York,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. (The VRAA of
2014 covered only Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.)
Coverage would last for a ten-year period.
Berman reports the bill will have other significant provisions,
including nationwide precelarance for certain changes, such as enactment
of voter id laws or proof of citizenship at registration.
A few reactions.
1. It is hard to blame Democrats for introducing a bill that more
closely tracks their preferences. The original VRAA was written for
bipartisan compromise. (Tellingly, one feature excluded voter id
objections from the list of objections which could count under a new
coverage formula). Democrats have been patient, but Republicans are not
moving at all on the compromise legislation. So Democrats had little to
lose putting up a marker.
2. If this bill ever became law, there would be some serious
constitutional questions about it if it came before the current Supreme
Court. Heather Gerken is quoted in the article as saying the timeline
is better in terms of constitutionality, and I agree. But the fact is
that many of the older objections were based on conduct that was not
itself unconstitutional. And so it is not clear that those earlier
objections could be used to rein in states now with the strong medicine
of preclearance. Further, as to the national preclearance standards,
there would not be an “equal sovereignty” objection (with some states
being treated differently than others) but there would remain the
federalism question about state v. federal control over elections.
Constitutionality, in short, is uncertain.
3. In terms of dealing with the biggest problems today, they crop up
everywhere, from Kansas, to Arizona, to Ohio to Pa. The idea of
nationwide preclearance of discrete election practices may have more
impact than those states to be targetted for blanket preclearance.
4. At the very least, with the 50th anniversary of the VRA approaching,
it is good to see Democrats doing something to keep this issue in the news.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73702&title=Democrats%20Have%20Stronger%20Proposal%20to%20Amend%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%2C%20But%20Huge%20Obstacles%20to%20Enacting%20It&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>,VRAA
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=81>
Inside the Ben Carson Super PAC <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73700>
Posted onJune 23, 2015 1:23 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73700>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Washington Examiner
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/inside-the-super-pacs-putting-ben-carson-on-top/article/2566819>Washington
Examiner:
While the super PACs say they do not work together, they may combine
into one larger super PAC soon. Former Carson campaign chairman
Terry Giles resigned from the campaign to reportedlyform a third
super PAC
<http://www.abc-7.com/story/29343961/presidential-candidates-lean-on-well-funded-outside-groups>that
would seek to combine both The 2016 Committee and One Voice into one
operation. Under federal election law, Giles must wait 120 days
before getting involved in the world of super PACs.
“I imagine at 120 days and one second my phone’s going to ring and
it’s going to be Terry saying let’s get together and talk about
this,” Sousa said. “I’m not going to get rid of my organization, but
I’m certainly happy to work with other organizations to make sure
that we’re not duplicating efforts and throwing money away, and it’s
all well coordinated — or as well-coordinated as the law allows it
to be.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73700&title=Inside%20the%20Ben%20Carson%20Super%20PAC&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Why the FEC’s Deadlock Won’t Change Any Time Soon”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73698>
Posted onJune 23, 2015 1:01 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73698>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Morning Consult reports.
<http://morningconsult.com/2015/06/why-the-fecs-deadlock-wont-change-any-time-soon/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73698&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20the%20FEC%E2%80%99s%20Deadlock%20Won%E2%80%99t%20Change%20Any%20Time%20Soon%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,federal
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>
What’s the Significance of the Roberts Court’s Relatively Liberal
Term? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73696>
Posted onJune 23, 2015 12:01 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73696>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT’s The UpShotcrunches the numbers
<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/23/upshot/the-roberts-courts-surprising-move-leftward.html?abt=0002&abg=1> and
find that this term liberal outcomes have prevailed more than in a
number of years:
The Supreme Court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has been a
conservative court. But even conservative courts have liberal terms
– and the current term is leaning left as it enters its final two weeks.
The court has issued liberal decisions in 54 percent of the cases in
which it had announced decisions as of June 22, according tothe
Supreme Court Database <http://supremecourtdatabase.org/>, using a
widely accepted standard developed by political scientists. If that
trend holds, the final percentage could rival the highest since the
era of the notably liberal court of the 1950s and 1960s led by Chief
Justice Earl Warren. The closest contenders are the previous term
and the one that started in 2004 and ended with the announcement of
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement.
I think the trend this term is real; indeed I tweeted about
<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/611536138507980800?lang=en>itlast
week
<https://twitter.com/search?q=liberals%20from%3Arickhasen%20since%3A2015-06-01%20until%3A2015-06-23&src=typd&lang=en>.
Indeed, if same sex marriage prevails and Obamacare survives unscathed,
it would really solidify the term as a liberal one. (Though as I told
the Times, if these cases came out the other way no one would think of
the term as liberal at all).
Nonetheless, this doesn’t mean we have a liberal Court or that liberal
trend will continue. But here are some thoughts on the phenomenon and
significance:
1. /Case selection. /AsCass Sunstein noted
<https://twitter.com/CassSunstein/status/613305321772163072>,
“Discussion of supposed leftward shift of Sup Ct does not control for
selection effects – case mix is not constant.” It is not just that the
Court gets to deny cert in cases, and avoid certain issues such as
abortion cases or affirmative action, much of it is the luck of the draw
in terms of what cases make it up to the Court. And litigants
self-select. For a long time liberals have wanted to stay out of the
Court in many classes of cases (e.g., voting rights or campaign finance
cases) because they know where five votes are.
2. /Counting just opinions. /Thinking of the Supreme Court allowing
Texas to use its draconian voter id law during the 2014 election seems
like a pretty “conservative decision.” But because it happened on an
emergency stay, it did not lead to a formal opinion that counts in The
UpShot’s numbers. Nor will decisions on abortion clinics. Some of what
the Court does is not reflected in opinions.
3. /All cases not created equal, and all Justices are not equal. /A few
years ago the Court gutted the Voting Rights Act on one day and then the
next day took a great step toward recognizing same sex marriage. Those
cases loomed over the entire term. And of course there was only one
Justice in the majority in both cases: Kennedy. They reflected Kennedy’s
views, which are conservative/libertarian but with streaks of liberalism
in isolated areas.
So yes it is true that the term is trending liberal. And that’s a good
thing if you are a liberal. But don’t expect the Court to stay this way,
not even into next term (or next week).
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73696&title=What%E2%80%99s%20the%20Significance%20of%20the%20Roberts%20Court%E2%80%99s%20Relatively%20Liberal%20Term%3F&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Setting Congress Up to Fail” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73694>
Posted onJune 23, 2015 11:43 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73694>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Margaret Kwonka has postedthis
draft<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2619421>on SSRN
(forthcoming 17 Berkeley J. Afr.-Am. L. & Pol’y 97 (2015)). Here is the
abstract:
In/Shelby County v. Holder/the Supreme Court invalidated key
provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 based on Congress’s
failure to justify the formula used to determine which jurisdictions
would be subject to the Act’s pre-clearance requirement of
submitting all changes to voting procedures to the Justice
Department for prior approval. This short essay explores one
problematic feature of the Court’s analysis: its refusal to consider
the legislative record as adequate because it was created to justify
the coverage formula after the fact, rather than to facilitate
deliberation on the coverage formula before a decision had been
made. This reasoning essentially imports from administrative law a
rule called the Chenery principle, and as this essay explains, it
does so without justification. The differences between
administrative and legislative decision making processes compel
different treatment by the courts, and treating legislative records
like administrative ones, in essence, asks of Congress something it
is institutionally ill-equipped to perform. It sets Congress up to fail.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73694&title=%E2%80%9CSetting%20Congress%20Up%20to%20Fail%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“McAuliffe says unpaid court fees won’t impede rights restoration”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73692>
Posted onJune 23, 2015 11:37 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73692>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The latest
<http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/mcauliffe-says-unpaid-court-fees-won-t-impede-rights-restoration/article_acd1c996-19bc-11e5-9293-af1b99a26e66.html>from
Va.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73692&title=%E2%80%9CMcAuliffe%20says%20unpaid%20court%20fees%20won%E2%80%99t%20impede%20rights%20restoration%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted infelon voting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=66>
“Can unlimited contributions to political parties really reduce
polarization?” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73689>
Posted onJune 23, 2015 11:32 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73689>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Lee Drutman is skeptical.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/06/23/can-unlimited-contributions-to-political-parties-really-reduce-polarization/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73689&title=%E2%80%9CCan%20unlimited%20contributions%20to%20political%20parties%20really%20reduce%20polarization%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,political
parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,political polarization
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>
“The More Things Change: Everyone Scrambles as North Carolina
Rethinks Voter ID (Again)” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73687>
Posted onJune 23, 2015 11:27 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73687>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
A ChapinBlog.
<http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/electionacademy/2015/06/the_more_things_change_north_c.php>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73687&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20More%20Things%20Change%3A%20Everyone%20Scrambles%20as%20North%20Carolina%20Rethinks%20Voter%20ID%20%28Again%29%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Daniel Weiser, activist and political numbers guru, dies at 81″
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73685>
Posted onJune 23, 2015 11:26 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73685>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Dallas Morning News:
<http://www.dallasnews.com/obituary-headlines/20150622-daniel-weiser-activist-and-political-numbers-guru-dies-at-81.ece>
Daniel Weiser is arguably the most powerful Dallas political figure
who never sought elected office.
A statistician, he was a leader in ending the poll tax and bringing
single-member districts to city and county and state elections. In
1973, he took his Texas redistricting argument to the U.S. Supreme
Court and won.
He helped clear a path to public office for minorities, women and gays.
During his 55 years in politics he became a respected and
sought-after authority on voter demographics.
Weiser, 81, died Saturday of heart disease at Medical City Dallas
Hospital.
Condolences to his family.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73685&title=%E2%80%9CDaniel%20Weiser%2C%20activist%20and%20political%20numbers%20guru%2C%20dies%20at%2081%E2%80%B3&description=>
Posted inelection law biz <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>
“CFI Announces Updated Historical Campaign Finance Statistics
through 2014″ <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73682>
Posted onJune 23, 2015 8:28 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73682>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Via email:
Now available on CFI’s website
<http://www.cfinst.org/data/historicalStats.aspx> are updated
versions of tables covering historical statistics on campaign
finance through 2014. These cover activity for full federal election
cycles, in some cases dating back to 1974. Newly added this year are
duplicate versions in nominal dollars and constant 2014 dollars. A
sampling of the topics covered includes:
* Spending levels in House and Senate elections, including how
much it takes to win;
* House and Senate spending by elections by competitiveness and
type of race (incumbent/challenger, open seat);
* Sources of funding for House and Senate races, including small
v. large donors;
* Independent and coordinated spending by political parties;
* Independent spending by non-party organizations;
* National Party Committee fundraising and sources of party funds;
* Presidential election campaigns;
For the full list of data tables click here.
<http://www.cfinst.org/data/historicalStats.aspx>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73682&title=%E2%80%9CCFI%20Announces%20Updated%20Historical%20Campaign%20Finance%20Statistics%20through%202014%E2%80%B3&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
Carly the Destroyer <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73680>
Posted onJune 23, 2015 8:26 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73680>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Shane Goldmacher
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/carly-fiorina-2016-campaign-super-pac-outsourcer-in-chief-20150619>on
Fiorina being the biggest outsourcer of campaign functions to her superpac.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73680&title=Carly%20the%20Destroyer&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
Bauer on #SCOTUS Renzi Petition and Congressional Self-Policing
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73678>
Posted onJune 23, 2015 8:25 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73678>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
interesting.
<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2015/06/congressional-ethics-court/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73678&title=Bauer%20on%20%23SCOTUS%20Renzi%20Petition%20and%20Congressional%20Self-Policing&description=>
Posted inethics investigations
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=42>,Speech or Debate Clause
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=36>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“130 Lawmakers Call on President to Require Transparency in
Political Spending” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73676>
Posted onJune 23, 2015 8:24 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73676>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Public Citizen press release.
<http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/pressroomredirect.cfm?ID=5562>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73676&title=%E2%80%9C130%20Lawmakers%20Call%20on%20President%20to%20Require%20Transparency%20in%20Political%20Spending%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
--
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/20150624/5331e5bf/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/20150624/5331e5bf/attachment.png>
View list directory