[EL] A note on posts to multiple lists -- RE: Most surprising remark in today's oral argument in the Arizona redistricting case

Mon Mar 2 11:32:34 PST 2015

Does crossing these streams lead to total protonic reversal? Because that
would be bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyaLZHiJJnE

Sean Parnell

President

Impact Policy Management, LLC

6411 Caleb Court

Alexandria, VA  22315

571-289-1374 (c)

sean at impactpolicymanagement.com

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of
Scarberry, Mark
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 2:28 PM
To: 'CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu' (CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu);
law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: [EL] A note on posts to multiple lists -- RE: Most surprising
remark in today's oral argument in the Arizona redistricting case

A few moments ago I broke my own rule and sent one post with an address that
included both the conlawprof and electionlaw lists. (This post also breaks
that rule.) Posts sent by people who are not members of both lists may not
get to all of you. Be aware, then, that the threads may diverge, and
responses may not take into account your posts.

Mark Scarberry (conlawprof moderator)

Mark S. Scarberry

Professor of Law

Pepperdine Univ. School of Law

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick
Hasen
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 11:22 AM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Most surprising remark in today's oral argument in the
Arizona redistricting case

Clement spent considerable time on McPherson in today's oral argument.

On 3/2/15 11:18 AM, Scarberry, Mark wrote:

An insurmountable problem with Waxman's argument (unless a prior case -
Hawke? - is overruled) is that legislature for purposes of ratification of
constitutional amendments does not mean the regular lawmaking process. A
governor's attempt to veto a legislature's decision to ratify is a nullity,
even though (if I recall correctly) a state constitution allows the governor
to veto bills passed by the legislature. If Waxman's "consensus view"
argument is correct, then Hawke is wrong. A question in Bush v. Gore was
whether legislature in Article II should be interpreted to mean something
different from its meaning in Article V. But isn't there another case (I
haven't looked at this in a while and haven't read the briefs or the
transcripts), I believe Smiley v. Holm (?), that allowed the governor to
have a role in the provision at issue here? So the question, if I understand
it correctly, is not whether  general lawmaking process that includes the
legislature is permissible, but whether a process that completely cuts out
the legislature (that is, the constitutionally mandated representative
legislative body or bodies) is permissible.

Again, it's been several years since I've read Hawke and Smiley, and I've
read neither the briefs nor the transcript in this redistricting case.
(McPherson is not on point here, though it was important in Bush v. Gore.)

Mark

Mark S. Scarberry

Professor of Law

Pepperdine Univ. School of Law

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Marty
Lederman
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 11:04 AM
To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu; Election Law
Subject: [EL] Most surprising remark in today's oral argument in the Arizona
redistricting case

SETH WAXMAN:  The meaning of the word "legislature" that we advocate ["the
power that makes laws," which Waxman derived from Samuel Johnson's
Dictionary of English Language (10th ed. 1792) and Noah Webster's
Compendious Dictionary of the English Language (1806)] . . . was, in fact,
the consensus definition of "legislature."  

JUSTICE SCALIA:  . . . . I don't think it was a consensus definition at all.
You've plucked that out of --a couple of dictionaries. 

[I was present in the Courtroom and can attest that the last sentence was
uttered with derision.  I probably was not the only one who was somewhat
alarmed to hear that, given the source.]

_______________________________________________
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/20150302/b946f2e9/attachment.html>