[EL] ELB News and Commentary 6/30/15

Rick Hasen rhasen at law.uci.edu
Tue Jun 30 08:16:21 PDT 2015 

    AZ Redistricting Roundup <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73912>

Posted onJune 30, 2015 8:05 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73912>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us/supreme-court-upholds-creation-of-arizona-redistricting-commission.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news>

WaPo 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/justices-rule-5-4-that-independent-panels-can-draw-election-district-lines/2015/06/29/c91269aa-1ae6-11e5-ab92-c75ae6ab94b5_story.html>

LAT 
<http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pol-california-arizona-redistricting-supreme-court-20150629-htmlstory.html> andLAT 
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-supreme-court-congressional-districts-gerrymander-20150629-story.html#page=1>

Politico 
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/arizona-redistricting-commission-supreme-court-voting-119543.html>

MSNBC 
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/supreme-court-decision-arizona-redistricting>

WSJ 
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-upholds-arizona-initiative-on-redrawing-voting-districts-1435588953>

AZ Republic 
<http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2015/06/29/arizona-congressional-map-redistricting-supreme-court/29015171/>

USA Today 
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/29/supreme-court-arizona-congress-maps/27400015/>

CNN 
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/29/politics/supreme-court-arizona-redistricting-ruling/>

AP 
<http://m.cjonline.com/news/2015-06-29/us-supreme-court-upholds-arizonas-system-redistricting#gsc.tab=0>

Bloomberg 
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-29/independent-redistricting-panel-upheld-by-u-s-supreme-court>

Reuters 
<http://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-upholds-independent-voter-approved-commission-arizona-348099>

My Slate column on the case ishere 
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/06/arizona_supreme_court_decision_redistricting_ruling_undermines_bush_v_gore.html>.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73912&title=AZ%20Redistricting%20Roundup&description=>
Posted inElections Clause 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>,redistricting 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “Gridlocked elections watchdog goes two years without top lawyer;
    FEC’s inaction hamstrings enforcement process, critics say”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73910>

Posted onJune 30, 2015 8:01 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73910>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

CPI reports. 
<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/06/30/17566/gridlocked-elections-watchdog-goes-two-years-without-top-lawyer>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73910&title=%E2%80%9CGridlocked%20elections%20watchdog%20goes%20two%20years%20without%20top%20lawyer%3B%20FEC%E2%80%99s%20inaction%20hamstrings%20enforcement%20process%2C%20critics%20say%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,federal 
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>


    “A Redistricting Ruling That Helps Counter Partisan Gerrymandering”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73908>

Posted onJune 30, 2015 8:00 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73908>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Linda Killian 
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/29/a-redistricting-ruling-that-helps-counter-partisan-gerrymandering/>in 
Wash Wire.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73908&title=%E2%80%9CA%20Redistricting%20Ruling%20That%20Helps%20Counter%20Partisan%20Gerrymandering%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    Will the AZ Redistricting Case Save National Popular Vote From
    Constitutional Challenge? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73906>

Posted onJune 30, 2015 7:40 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73906>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision reading the term “Legislature” 
capaciously for purposes of the Elections Clause likely means it would 
be read capaciously for purposes of Article II as well. This means, for 
example, that if a state by initative decides to divide up its electoral 
college votes proportionally rather than winner take all, or district by 
district, it likely does not usurp the power of the state legislature. 
(Seemy Slate 
piece<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/06/arizona_supreme_court_decision_redistricting_ruling_undermines_bush_v_gore.html>yesterday 
on the connection of the AZ case to Bush v. Gore’s discussion of this 
issue.)

But that does not mean, asRichard Winger suggests 
<http://ballot-access.org/2015/06/29/todays-u-s-supreme-court-ruling-boosts-national-popular-vote-plan/>, 
as easy constitutional path for the enactment of NPV, which would divide 
electoral college votes of all states that agree in line with the winner 
of the national popular vote.

The biggest constitutional problem with NPV is not the Legislature 
question, but instead whether such an agreement among the states would 
be a “compact” requiring congressional approval. Derek Muller makesa 
strong argument 
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=979537>that the 
compact issue is a problem.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73906&title=Will%20the%20AZ%20Redistricting%20Case%20Save%20National%20Popular%20Vote%20From%20Constitutional%20Challenge%3F&description=>
Posted inElections Clause <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>,electoral 
college <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=44>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “At the Supreme Court, a Win for Direct Democracy”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73904>

Posted onJune 30, 2015 7:36 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73904>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Rick Pildes 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/opinion/at-the-supreme-court-awin-for-direct-democracy.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0>NYT 
oped concludes:

    The Supreme Court often surprises critics who see it in
    simplistically ideological terms. As this term and this decision
    confirm, the current court remains a pragmatically minded
    institution that interprets legal language with an eye toward the
    problems that language was created to address. As a result, direct
    democracy will remain available to constrain partisan gerrymandering
    and other ways legislatures seek to manipulate democratic purposes
    for self-serving reasons.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73904&title=%E2%80%9CAt%20the%20Supreme%20Court%2C%20a%20Win%20for%20Direct%20Democracy%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inElections Clause 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>,redistricting 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    Ronald Keith Gaddie on AZ Redistricting
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73902>

Posted onJune 30, 2015 7:12 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73902>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

LSE blog 
<http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2015/06/30/in-its-arizona-redistricting-decision-the-supreme-court-has-made-explicit-that-redistricting-initiatives-are-a-state-legislative-action/>:

    One might argue that this is a conservative decision. It leaves the
    status quo in place, and it defers to the state constitution in
    matters of state policymaking. States are able to order their
    institutions, so long as they do not deny or abridge fundamental
    rights of the individual. In the case of Arizona’s proposition 106,
    voters had exercised their right to enact “any law which may be
    enacted by the Legislature
    <http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/const/4/1.p1.htm>.”
    The Court has affirmed astate right
    <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/States%2527+Rights>.

    The minority would doubtlessly disagree with this states’ rights
    characterization. Justice Roberts argues that “The Court’s position
    has no basis in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution,
    and it contradicts precedents from both Congress and this Court.” In
    effect, the Court has created this understanding of what is a
    legislature anew, out of whole cloth. More specifically, he refers
    to the decision as a “magic trick.” A legislature for Justice
    Roberts is a republican form of legislature, the representative
    institution, rather than the potentially evolving legislative
    authority of the state.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73902&title=Ronald%20Keith%20Gaddie%20on%20AZ%20Redistricting&description=>
Posted inElections Clause 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>,redistricting 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    Breaking: #SCOTUS to Hear ANOTHER AZ Redistricting Case
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73892>

Posted onJune 30, 2015 6:33 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73892>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The case 
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/063015zr_pnk0.pdf>is 
Wesley v. AZ Redistricting Commission (14-232) and the three questions 
presented (in thejurisdictional statement 
<http://redistricting.lls.edu/files/AZ%20harris%2020140825%20juris.pdf>) 
  deal with one person, one vote deviations to satisfy partisan 
advantage, deviations from partisan advantage to satisfy the (now 
defunct) preclearance requirements of the DOJ, and whether the 
redistricting commission erred in allegedly drawing Hispanic influence 
districts.  This could turn out to be a major case, although the first 
question seems to have been resolved by the Supreme Court’s summary 
affirmance in Larios v. Cox, and the second question seems mooted by 
/Shelby County/‘s killing of preclearance. I am not sure why the Court 
took this case rather than a simple summary affirmance, but we will find 
out soon enough. Perhaps the Court thought it should take the case while 
the larger /Evenwel/one person, one vote case was pending.

The full questions presented are:

Screen Shot 2015-06-30 at 6.38.46 AM 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2015-06-30-at-6.38.46-AM.png>

Via Justin Levitt, <http://redistricting.lls.edu/cases-AZ.php#AZ>here 
are the relevant documents:

*District court*

–*_Opinion_rejecting challenges* 
<http://redistricting.lls.edu/files/AZ%20harris%2020140429%20order.pdf>,_concurrence_ 
<http://redistricting.lls.edu/files/AZ%20harris%2020140429%20concur.pdf>,_dissent_ 
<http://redistricting.lls.edu/files/AZ%20harris%2020140429%20dissent.pdf>(Apr. 
29, 2014).

*U.S. Supreme Court*
–Notice of appeal 
<http://redistricting.lls.edu/files/AZ%20harris%2020140625%20noa.pdf>(June 
25).
–Jurisdictional statement 
<http://redistricting.lls.edu/files/AZ%20harris%2020140825%20juris.pdf>(Aug. 
25).
–Motion to dismiss or affirm 
<http://redistricting.lls.edu/files/AZ%20harris%2020141113%20affirm.pdf>(Nov. 
13).
–Opposition 
<http://redistricting.lls.edu/files/AZ%20harris%2020141202%20opp.pdf>(Dec. 
2).

Thor Hearne, whose fraudulent fraud squad activities get full play in my 
book, /The Voting Wars/, brought this case.

This post has been updated.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73892&title=Breaking%3A%20%23SCOTUS%20to%20Hear%20ANOTHER%20AZ%20Redistricting%20Case&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,Voting Rights Act 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


    “Standing in the Arizona Redistricting Case: Some Initial
    Observations” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73890>

Posted onJune 29, 2015 4:11 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73890>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

My @UCILaw colleague Seth Davis with someinteresting thoughts 
<http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2015/06/standing-in-the-arizona-redistricting-case-some-initial-observations.html>.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73890&title=%E2%80%9CStanding%20in%20the%20Arizona%20Redistricting%20Case%3A%20Some%20Initial%20Observations%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “When ‘Legislature’ May Mean More than ‘Legislature': Initiated
    Electoral College Reform and the Ghost of Bush v. Gore”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73888>

Posted onJune 29, 2015 4:04 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73888>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

I wrotethis piece 
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1065421>in 2008 for 
the /Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly. /After the AZ case, I can 
say that I now think it is very likely that initiated electoral college 
reform would satisfy the Legislature requirement of Article II. Here’s 
the abstract:

    This Article, forthcoming in a symposium in the Hastings
    Constitutional Law Quarterly, examines the question of the
    constitutionality of changes to the Electoral College accomplished
    through the initiative process; it does not discuss the merits of
    either the Electoral College or reforms that have been proposed to
    change it (whether through the initiative process or otherwise).
    Part I gives the brief history of attempts to use the state
    initiative process to change the rules for choosing presidential
    electors, beginning with Colorado’s Amendment 36, which would have
    divided the state’s electoral votes proportionally but failed to
    pass in the 2004 election, to the current California Electoral
    College measure, which would divide electoral votes mostly by
    congressional district and whose fate is unclear as of this writing.
    It also explains that even if the California measure fails to
    qualify or pass, this issue could well arise in a future election
    because of general dissatisfaction among segments of the population
    with the Electoral College system for choosing the President. Part
    II turns to the constitutional question whether initiated changes to
    rules for choosing presidential electors violate Article II. It
    offers an analysis of the question based upon the text of Article
    II, relevant Supreme Court caselaw involving Article II, as well as
    Articles I and V, and the possible purposes behind Article II’s use
    of the term Legislature. It concludes that the issue of the
    constitutionality of initiated Electoral College reform is a
    difficult one to resolve about which reasonable jurists will differ,
    and because of that difficulty resolution by the Supreme Court could
    appear to be colored by the political considerations of who could
    lose or win by resolution of the question raising the specter of
    another Bush v. Gore. Part III concludes with two strategies that
    can help avoid the Article II question from becoming the next Bush
    v. Gore. First, courts should be more willing to engage in
    pre-election review of such measures, so that these issues can be
    resolved before, rather than after, an election. Second, Congress
    should consider amending the Constitution with an election
    administration amendment that would impose a two-year waiting period
    before any state’s changes to Electoral College rules may go into
    effect. An amendment changing the Electoral College itself would be
    difficult to pass through Congress and the states. But my proposal
    is a neutral amendment ex ante that could decouple the consideration
    of the merits of Electoral College reform from the short term
    political advantages that could come from such a change.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73888&title=%E2%80%9CWhen%20%E2%80%98Legislature%E2%80%99%20May%20Mean%20More%20than%20%E2%80%98Legislature%27%3A%20Initiated%20Electoral%20College%20Reform%20and%20the%20Ghost%20of%20Bush%20v.%20Gore%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inElections Clause <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>,Supreme 
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “The Arizona Decision: Constitutional Reasoning Within the Reform
    Model” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73886>

Posted onJune 29, 2015 3:49 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73886>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bauer 
<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2015/06/arizona-decision-constitutional-reasoning-within-reform-model/>:

    The next few days of commentary onthe Arizona redistricting decision
    <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_kjfl.pdf>will
    include the usual debate about which side had the better of the
    “legal argument.”   And, in truth, both the majority opinion and the
    chief (Roberts) dissent can be defended.  Each is effectively drawn,
    making the most of the materials available to it.  Each also takes
    the usual liberties with the construction of precedent and the
    standards by which particular points—an example being the majority’s
    reliance on 2 U.S.C. §2(a)(c)—are deemed relevant.  More interesting
    is the way that the majority weighs the/reform/objective.  The
    majority in the Arizona case adheres to a model familiar in
    political reform arguments more generally, within and outside the Court.

    For this majority, the constitutional question cannot be considered
    apart from the reform objective served by the initiative creating
    the Independent Redistricting Commission.  The “people” are seen to
    be taking urgent steps to protect against officeholder
    self-interestedness. So, as Justice Thomas points out in dissent,
    the Court here lauds the exercise of direct democracy, which at
    other times is given the back of its hand.  The reason for the
    difference is simple: the objective that the tools of direct
    democracy have been in this case wielded to bring about.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73886&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Arizona%20Decision%3A%20Constitutional%20Reasoning%20Within%20the%20Reform%20Model%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    Sam Wang on AZ Redistricting Case <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73884>

Posted onJune 29, 2015 3:29 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73884>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Here 
<http://election.princeton.edu/2015/06/29/scotus-upholds-arizona-redistricting-commission-5-4/>.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73884&title=Sam%20Wang%20on%20AZ%20Redistricting%20Case&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “Supreme Court Approves Arizona Redistricting Commission”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73882>

Posted onJune 29, 2015 3:19 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73882>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Carrie Johnson reports 
<http://www.npr.org/2015/06/29/418641145/supreme-court-approves-arizona-redistricting-commission>for 
NPR.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73882&title=%E2%80%9CSupreme%20Court%20Approves%20Arizona%20Redistricting%20Commission%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


    Small Error in Justice Ginsburg’s AZ Redistricting Decision
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73880>

Posted onJune 29, 2015 2:33 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73880>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

A reader via email notes to me that Justice Ginsburg’s decision in the 
AZ redistricting case contains a minor error of fact on page 8 ofthe 
slip opinion <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/az.pdf>. The 
opinion states:

    The California Redistricting Commission, established by popular
    initiative, develops redistricting plans which become effective if
    approved by public referendum.7

    7. See Cal. Const., Art. XXI, §2; Cal. Govt. Code Ann. §§8251–8253.6
    (West Supp. 2015).

In fact, there is no referendum requirement inArt. XXI 
<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_21>of the state Constitution. 
Instead, the go into effect after being approved, but they are subject 
to potential referendum under the usual rules for referenda of 
legislative matters. See Cal. Consts. Art. XXI section 2(i):

    (i) Each certified final map shall be subject to referendum in the same manner that a statute is subject to referendum pursuant to Section 9 of Article II. The date of certification of a final map to the Secretary of State shall be deemed the enactment date forpurposes of Section 9 of Article II.

The last time readerspointed out an error 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67193>in a Justice Ginsburg opinion, I 
noted it on the blog and the Justicequickly 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67275>corrected it 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67566>.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73880&title=Small%20Error%20in%20Justice%20Ginsburg%E2%80%99s%20AZ%20Redistricting%20Decision&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “Justices Rule for Arizona’s Independent Redistricting Commission”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73878>

Posted onJune 29, 2015 2:13 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73878>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Mike Sacks and Marcia Coyle report <http://t.co/vfTGj6IzMy>for the NLJ.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73878&title=%E2%80%9CJustices%20Rule%20for%20Arizona%E2%80%99s%20Independent%20Redistricting%20Commission%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    Will Kansas Have Two Election Registration Systems, One for Federal
    and One for State? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73876>

Posted onJune 29, 2015 1:42 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73876>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Challenge pending 
<http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2015/jun/29/high-court-wont-review-kansas-proof-citizenship-ru/>, 
now ripe after cert denial inKobach v. EAC 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73829>.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73876&title=Will%20Kansas%20Have%20Two%20Election%20Registration%20Systems%2C%20One%20for%20Federal%20and%20One%20for%20State%3F&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,NVRA (motor voter) 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>,The Voting Wars 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


    “Hillary Clinton Faces a More Liberal Democratic Fund-Raising
    Landscape” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73874>

Posted onJune 29, 2015 1:36 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73874>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Important 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us/politics/hillary-clinton-faces-a-more-liberal-democratic-fund-raising-landscape.html>NYT 
analysis:

    Hillary Rodham Clinton
    <http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/13/us/elections/hillary-clinton.html?inline=nyt-per>will
    seek out donors to her presidential campaign from a Democratic
    fund-raising landscape vastly altered since her first presidential
    bid and far more ideologically aligned with the party’s liberal
    activists.

    Democrats now get far less money from Wall Street, military
    contractors, health care companies and other industries that for
    decades ladled out cash more evenly to both parties, according to a
    New York Times analysis of data collected by the Center for
    Responsive Politics, a watchdog group. And the party now relies far
    more on constituencies that have achieved new clout in the era of
    “super PACs
    <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/campaign_finance/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>”
    and carefully targeted digital fund-raising.

    As many as one-fifth of elite Democratic “bundlers” — volunteers who
    raise money from friends and business associates — are active in
    gay-rights causes or are themselves gay or lesbian. Outside
    Democratic groups rely heavily on wealthy environmentalists, such as
    the billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael R. Bloomberg, and on labor
    unions, whose financial might has been magnified by the Supreme
    Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 even as their membership
    rolls decline.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73874&title=%E2%80%9CHillary%20Clinton%20Faces%20a%20More%20Liberal%20Democratic%20Fund-Raising%20Landscape%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


    On “To the Point” Talking #SCOTUS Term
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73872>

Posted onJune 29, 2015 1:27 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73872>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

I was on talking to Warren Olney with Josh Gerstein, Ilya Shapiro, and 
Nan Hunter.

Listen 
<http://www.kcrw.com/news-culture/shows/to-the-point/justice-kennedy-leads-the-supreme-court-towards-a-historic-term/>.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73872&title=On%20%E2%80%9CTo%20the%20Point%E2%80%9D%20Talking%20%23SCOTUS%20Term&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “Voting-Rights Advocates Get Win at Supreme Court”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73870>

Posted onJune 29, 2015 1:26 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73870>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Roll Call reports. 
<http://atr.rollcall.com/supreme-court-victory-for-voting-rights-advocates/>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73870&title=%E2%80%9CVoting-Rights%20Advocates%20Get%20Win%20at%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


    Nate Persily on AZ Redistricting Decision, Etc.
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73868>

Posted onJune 29, 2015 1:02 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73868>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Nate, whose work was cited multiple times in today’s decision,writes 
<http://stanfordlawyer.law.stanford.edu/2015/06/arizona-state-legislature-v-arizona-redistricting-committee-no-appetite-for-destruction/>:

    While observers of the Court will read into these opinions – as they
    should — larger principles of legislative deference or fundamental
    rights or respect for the democratic process, we should not ignore
    the opinions’ pragmatic side. Indeed, the Court broke new ground
    with these opinions, but it also dodged several bullets. Avoiding
    dramatic instability in the law, while rarely a rallying cry, is an
    achievement nonetheless.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73868&title=Nate%20Persily%20on%20AZ%20Redistricting%20Decision%2C%20Etc.&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    Breaking: #SCOTUS Stays TX Abortion Order, Making Abortion Case Next
    Term Very Likely: It’s Still Justice Kennedy’s Court
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73864>

Posted onJune 29, 2015 12:45 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73864>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Here 
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062915zr_6j37.pdf>is the 
order:

    The application for stay presented to Justice Scalia and by him
    referred to the Court is granted, and the issuance of the mandate of
    the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in case No.
    14-50928 is stayed pending the timely filing and disposition of a
    petition for a writ of certiorari. Should the petition for a writ of
    certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In
    the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay
    shall terminate upon the issuance of the judgment of this Court. The
    Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito
    would deny the application.

It is Justice Kennedy’s Court after all.

It will take only 4 Justices to hear the case, but I can’t imagine 
anything but a cert. grant in this case (or the Mississippi case with 
this one held).  And a stay looks at a sneak peek on the merits, and 
that means that the challengers have a decent likelihood of succeeding.

[This post has been updated.]

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73864&title=Breaking%3A%20%23SCOTUS%20Stays%20TX%20Abortion%20Order%2C%20Making%20Abortion%20Case%20Next%20Term%20Very%20Likely%3A%20It%E2%80%99s%20Still%20Justice%20Kennedy%E2%80%99s%20Court&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

-- 
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/20150630/a0081426/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/20150630/a0081426/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screen-Shot-2015-06-30-at-6.38.46-AM-293x300.png
Type: image/png
Size: 91743 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150630/a0081426/attachment-0001.png>

View list directory