[EL] ELB News and Commentary 3/28/15

Rick Hasen rhasen at law.uci.edu
Sat Mar 28 09:49:14 PDT 2015


    Is Jeb Bush Losing the Sheldon Adelson Primary?
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71358>

Posted onMarch 28, 2015 8:27 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71358>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT. 
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/03/27/g-o-p-hawks-upset-with-bush-after-baker-speech-on-israel/>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71358&title=Is%20Jeb%20Bush%20Losing%20the%20Sheldon%20Adelson%20Primary%3F&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


    “Voter turnout disparity was key in razor-thin O.C. supervisor race”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71356>

Posted onMarch 28, 2015 7:24 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71356>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

LAT 
<http://www.latimes.com/local/orangecounty/la-me-lost-election-20150328-story.html#page=1>:

    The upset marked a political earthquake in central Orange County, an
    ethnically diverse area dominated by Latinos in Santa Ana and Asian
    Americans in the Little Saigon area. It’s the only part of Orange
    County where Democrats hold a voter registration advantage over
    Republicans.

    But a Los Angeles Times analysis of election results shows how
    Republicans can still win because Asian American voter turnout is so
    much higher than Latino turnout.

    The close election loss

    The close election loss
    <http://www.latimes.com/visuals/graphics/la-me-g-lost-election-20150326-htmlstory.html>

    The outcome, the analysis found, turned on the high number of Santa
    Ana voters who failed to return the absentee ballots that had been
    mailed to them.

    In the core of Santa Ana, where voting heavily favored Correa, only
    22% of the absentee voters got around to returning their ballots,
    far below the state and county’s 50% return rate for absentee
    ballots in the 2014 general election. The unreturned ballots
    represented tens of thousands of votes.

    Andrew Do, by contrast, got a big boost because more than 40% of the
    absentee voters in Little Saigon returned their ballots.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71356&title=%E2%80%9CVoter%20turnout%20disparity%20was%20key%20in%20razor-thin%20O.C.%20supervisor%20race%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,voting 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>


    “Court Sides With Challenge to Alabama’s ‘Racial Gerrymander'”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71354>

Posted onMarch 28, 2015 7:20 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71354>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Marcia Coyle reports 
<http://www.nationallawjournal.com/supremecourtbrief/id=1202721647190/Court-Sides-With-Challenge-to-Alabamas-Racial-Gerrymander>for 
NLJ.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71354&title=%E2%80%9CCourt%20Sides%20With%20Challenge%20to%20Alabama%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%98Racial%20Gerrymander%27%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,Voting Rights Act 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


    “State high court won’t hear arguments in John Doe cases”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71352>

Posted onMarch 28, 2015 6:22 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71352>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel 
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/state-high-court-wont-hear-arguments-in-john-doe-cases-b99467758z1-297846101.html>:

    The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Friday it would not hear arguments
    — in secret or in public — as it considers whether to allow an
    investigation to continue that has looked into whetherGov. Scott
    Walker’s
    <http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/scott-walker-290106981.html>campaign
    illegally worked with conservative groups in recall elections.

    “The prospect of oral argument creates severe tension between
    important and conflicting priorities,”the court wrote
    <http://media.jrn.com/documents/johndoeoralarguments.pdf>, citing
    the long tradition of open courts and the secrecy of the John Doe.

    Instead, the court will decide the matter based on hundreds of pages
    of briefs that have been filed in the cases, mostly in secret,
    because the court also rejected a special prosecutor’s argument that
    the secrecy genie has already largely escaped the bottle.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71352&title=%E2%80%9CState%20high%20court%20won%E2%80%99t%20hear%20arguments%20in%20John%20Doe%20cases%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,chicanery 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


    “The people’s representatives should be elected”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71350>

Posted onMarch 27, 2015 3:32 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71350>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Dania Korkor and Rob Richie oped 
<http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-special-elections-20150329-story.html>in 
the /Baltimore Sun./

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71350&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20people%E2%80%99s%20representatives%20should%20be%20elected%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


    “Campaign Money Tests Wisconsin Justices’ Impartiality”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71348>

Posted onMarch 27, 2015 3:22 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71348>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Fascinating Monica Davey NYT report. 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/us/in-wisconsin-campaign-money-tests-justices-impartiality.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71348&title=%E2%80%9CCampaign%20Money%20Tests%20Wisconsin%20Justices%E2%80%99%20Impartiality%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,judicial elections 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>


    “Applying Citizens United to Ordinary Corruption”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71346>

Posted onMarch 27, 2015 9:06 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71346>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

George Brown has postedthis 
draft<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2584075>on SSRN 
(forthcoming, /Notre Dame Law Review/).  Here is the abstract:

    Federal criminal law frequently deals with the problem of corruption
    in the form of purchased political influence. There appear to be two
    distinct bodies of federal anti-corruption law — one concerning
    campaign finance regulation, and one addressing corruption in the
    form of such crimes as bribery, extortion by public officials, and
    gratuities to them. The latter body of law presents primarily issues
    of statutory construction, but it may be desirable for courts
    approaching these issues to have an animating theory of what
    corruption is and how to deal with it. At the moment, the two bodies
    of law look like two ships passing in the night.

    The Supreme Court has rendered important decisions in both areas.
    However, it is only in the campaign finance cases that the Court has
    articulated a vision of corruption. A well-known recent example is
    the 2010 decision in Federal Election Commission v. Citizens United.
    There the Court stated that “influence” and “access” brought about
    through campaign support, including contributions, are not
    corruption. The Court appears to embrace a narrow view of what is
    corruption, tied closely to the concept of quid pro quo.

    This Article raises the question whether cases such as Citizens
    United and other campaign finance decisions should have generative
    force outside the electoral context. I contend that they should not
    — that preventing purchased political influence, whether generalized
    or particularized, is central to the federal anti-corruption
    enterprise. The matter is presented both on a theoretical level, and
    through examination of Supreme Court cases in what might be called
    the field of “ordinary corruption.” This examination yields an
    unclear picture. Some cases appear to be in harmony with the
    campaign finance decisions, raising the possibility that the Court
    does hold a unified view of corruption. However, the decision in
    Evans v. United States embraces a broad view of corruption in
    construing a key federal statute: the Hobbs Act. Evans has had
    extraordinary generative force in the lower federal courts. In
    particular, they have diluted any requirement of specificity in the
    concept of quid pro quo by emphasizing the presence of a “stream of
    benefits” as a means of securing somewhat generalized influence with
    public officials. The lower courts have thus reached results that
    further broad anti-corruption goals while ignoring intimations of a
    narrow view in the campaign finance cases. To the extent that the
    Supreme Court may extend this narrow view to ordinary corruption,
    the result could, as it has in the past, be a major ruling reining
    in the lower courts. The two ships would, in effect, collide.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71346&title=%E2%80%9CApplying%20Citizens%20United%20to%20Ordinary%20Corruption%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inbribery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>,campaign finance 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,chicanery 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


    Are You a Student Taking an Election Law or Legislation Course This
    Semester? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71344>

Posted onMarch 27, 2015 8:55 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71344>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Then you might want to check out myExamples and Explanations study aid 
<http://www.amazon.com/Examples-Explanations-Legislation-Statutory-Interpretation/dp/1454845414/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1401919780&sr=8-1&keywords=hasen+legislation>. 
 From the book description:

    An up-to-date, user-friendly, and clear student-oriented treatise
    tackling the complex subjects in this field, including statutory
    interpretation, lobbying, bribery, campaign finance law, and voting
    rights. Suitable for use with courses in Legislation and Regulation,
    Statutory Interpretation, Election Law, Voting Rights, and Campaign
    Finance. Features an easy-to-follow correlation chart that matches
    the book’s coverage to the leading casebooks. Written by one of the
    leading voices in the field of election law and legislation. No
    other statutory supplement is as comprehensive, up-to-date, and full
    of examples (and answers) to test student knowledge.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71344&title=Are%20You%20a%20Student%20Taking%20an%20Election%20Law%20or%20Legislation%20Course%20This%20Semester%3F&description=>
Posted inpedagogy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=23>


-- 
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/20150328/94301ae9/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/20150328/94301ae9/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 300x169
Type: image/png
Size: 84476 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150328/94301ae9/attachment-0001.png>


View list directory