[EL] ELB News and Commentary 6/30/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Tue Jun 30 08:37:51 PDT 2015
Correction: The new AZ SCOTUS case is Harris v. Az. Indep. Redistricting
Commission (Wesley is the plaintiff's first name).
On 6/30/15 8:16 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>
>
> 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®ion=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®ion=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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
--
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/20150630/5afb74e3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150630/5afb74e3/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 91743 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150630/5afb74e3/attachment-0001.png>
View list directory