[EL] CCP Emergency SCOTUS relief/more news
Schultz, David A.
dschultz at hamline.edu
Sat May 16 12:50:56 PDT 2015
Truly a bemusing set of responses to my initial e-mail which simply
reminded people of what the current law says. In the process it has been
fascinating to see a collection of sloppy readings, faulty assumptions, a
worse of all, accused of being a supporter of Secretary Clinton! And to
top that I am glad to have made Brad Smith’s day by bringing a chuckle to
him. All in all, not a bad day in addition to running ten miles and
fighting traffic jams in St Paul.
A few thoughts.
To Allen Dickerson: My comments were not directed to anyone in particular
but it was Eric Lycan that put CCP into play when he responded to me. Once
he did that I responded to him.
Moreover, I express no judgment regarding your specific case or facts.
Long ago I accepted the wise advice of Ludwig Wittgenstein who ended his
Tractatus by declaring (my translation from the German) “That of which one
cannot speak, one must remain silent.” I take his point to be that of
which we do not know we should not discuss. Phrased better, it is best not
to comment on things of which one has no knowledge. I think we all would
be better off if we took the fine philosopher’s suggestion.
To Bill Maurer: Clinton is a hypocrite on money and politics, so is Obama.
Frankly, so are many of the candidates who call for reforms but do
nothing. Why do you assume I support Clinton (I express no preference here
or elsewhere on whom I may or may not support)? You don’t know me, and you
are too quick to assume something you should not. Why assume only
Democrats support regulation on money and politics or political
disclosure. It seems to me that a fine and noble Republican John McCain
was once a major supporter of regulating money in politics. In addition,
if I am not wrong (and I should be corrected if I am) I thought large
majorities of people who identify as either Democrat or Republican think
Citizens United was wrong and that we need to do more to regulate the
amount of money in politics. Moreover, I remember the days when I was
director of Common Cause Minnesota and I could count on 40% of my
membership base being Republicans. Nationally, I think Common Cause used
to be able to count on a large number of their members being Republican or
independents.
To Brad Smith: There you go again! While I am glad to have cracked you up,
first you just laugh off criticisms as if that counts for debate. Second,
you assume that the issue is about not liking groups and therefore I want
to pick partisan winners and losers.
I disagree with the message of CCP but firmly believe in your right to
espouse it and you should not be harassed by the government because of the
content or viewpoint expressed. I agree with that. I headed up two
different ACLU chapters and in one of them advocated the right of an
individual to burn a cross across the street from an African-American
family. I think the First Amendment entitles people to express all types
of objectionable speech and as someone who has advised hundreds of
non-profits I tell them that they enjoy broad rights to do what they want
and not be harassed by the government.
Having said that, clearly we disagree on what it means to be harassed. You
seem to think that harassment means anything that would prevent any actor
from expending unlimited amounts of money in a secretive fashion for
political purposes. Alas, I do not agree with such a position. While such
a theory a terrific theory about capitalism that Robert Nozick and Ayn Rand
would love, it is not a theory about how a democracy should operate. It is
a theory that assumes falsely that all of us have unlimited rights to
expended unlimited amounts of money for unlimited purposes. It is a great
abstract theory of rights but it lacks a sociology and a sense of the fact
that we live in a society and need to learn how to live together.
Finally, words do matter. That is why judges consult dictionaries. I
(and probably most people do too) happen to think that lobbying and
advocacy are political activities but they are not prohibited activities by
the IRS.
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Allen Dickerson <
adickerson at campaignfreedom.org> wrote:
> She is requiring the unredacted Form 990 filed with the IRS.
>
> While claiming she will not disclose that information, whether her
> successors are empowered to reverse that position, and whether this would
> be available for public review under California Public Records law is
> disputed.
>
> On May 16, 2015, at 3:15 PM, "Rick Hasen" <hasenr at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Am I correct that the CA AG is not requiring any public disclosure, but
> the same disclosure as is already made to the IRS? Or is it demanding more
> than is already provided to the IRS?
>
> On 5/16/15 12:04 PM, Allen Dickerson wrote:
>
> I realize this list sees things through a certain lens, but this case
> has nothing to do with election law.
>
> The AG's demand applies to every 501(c)(3). To CCP and the Clinton
> Foundation. And also to the NAACP, Long Island Jewish Hospital, Catholic
> Charities, PETA, and Harvard. (Or fill in whichever charities you gave to
> last year).
>
> This case doesn't slide neatly into the tired free speech/reform
> dichotomy. Progressives should also find California's behavior troubling,
> perhaps troubling enough to put other disagreements aside and help CCP
> defend what was once a central principle of liberal thought.
>
> On May 16, 2015, at 2:39 PM, "Bill Maurer" <wmaurer at ij.org> wrote:
>
> Just so I have this straight: The side of the debate that features
> Hillary Clinton as its most prominent voice is lecturing others about the
> harm caused by "the ability of marketplace actors to convert unlimited
> amounts of money in a clandestine fashion into political influence and
> power"? Seriously?
> ------------------------------
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Smith, Brad [
> BSmith at law.capital.edu]
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 16, 2015 10:18 AM
> *To:* Schultz, David A.; info at lycanlaw.com
> *Cc:* law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] CCP Emergency SCOTUS relief/more news
>
> David's post just crack me up. Truly made my day.
>
> Over and over various pro-regulation groups demand the people's "right
> to know" (along the "right to limit") and "right to prohibit," praise
> certain officeholders and condemn others, argue to various positions on
> issues, all the while claiming to be exempt from the rules they support and
> try to impose on others, but if CCP or some other organization David
> doesn't like points out that it, too, is not a political advocacy group,
> suddenly everybody is parsing their dictionaries and code books.
>
> What a hoot. Truly. Thank you David. And no, I really am not being
> sarcastic here. Some of you will assume I am, but I'm really not. This
> really has made my day, and I really am chuckling.
>
> *Bradley A. Smith*
>
> *Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault*
>
> * Professor of Law*
>
> *Capital University Law School*
>
> *303 E. Broad St.*
>
> *Columbus, OH 43215*
>
> *614.236.6317 <614.236.6317>*
>
> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
> <http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx>*
> ------------------------------
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Schultz,
> David A. [dschultz at hamline.edu]
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 16, 2015 12:34 PM
> *To:* info at lycanlaw.com
> *Cc:* law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] CCP Emergency SCOTUS relief/more news
>
> Au contraire Mr. Lycan!
>
> While I am not so naive to think that public officials do not have
> political agendas and that they have a monopoly of virtue, I am equally not
> so naive to think that the CCP too is angelic. The CCP is not so much
> depending the right of free speech as it is defending the ability of
> marketplace actors to convert unlimited amounts of money in a clandestine
> fashion into political influence and power. I hardly think that is what
> First Amendment right to free speech is supposed to be about or what the
> framers intended, unless of course you think Charles Beard is correct about
> who the constitutional framers were (if I may include James Madison as
> author of the Bill of Rights as one of the framers).
>
> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 8:49 AM, info at lycanlaw.com <info at lycanlaw.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Those of us who are not naive "suspect" there are many elected
>> officials and regulators abusing their governmental or prosecutorial powers
>> to further political or partisan goals. The only irony here is that CCP, an
>> organization dedicated to defending free speech against such abuses while
>> engaging in zero campaign activity, is itself a target for exactly such an
>> abuse.
>>
>> Actually, that isn't irony at all. Perhaps the irony is that the
>> government actors are prohibited by the First Amendment from censoring
>> speech, but the focus is all on the private citizens for defending their
>> right to speak without fear of government retaliation.
>>
>> Eric Lycan
>> Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
>> 859-425-1047 office
>> 859-621-8888 mobile
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone, please pardon brevity and typing errors
>>
>> On May 16, 2015, at 8:28 AM, Schultz, David A. <dschultz at hamline.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> FYI and clarification for all:
>>
>> 501 c 3 are barred from engaging in partisan politics but they are not
>> prevented in toto from engaging in some types of political advocacy or
>> activity either at the state or federal level.
>>
>> 501 c 3 groups are allowed to do a certain amount of political advocacy
>> or lobbying so long as these activities are not a substantial part of the
>> organization. The nature and amount of these activities are determined by
>> law or IRS rules and often these groups elect for the expenditure test
>> under 501 (h) to address any uncertainty in determining what is a
>> substantial part.
>>
>> States may also legitimately impose additional rules on entities
>> seeking to influence elections or lobby. Many state require registration
>> as political organizations or funds, thereby imposing additional disclosure
>> rules.
>>
>> Those of us who are not naive suspect there are many entities abusing
>> either their 501 c3 or 501 c 4 shells to further political or partisan
>> goals. One of the ironies of those who oppose disclosure rules is that
>> there is significant difficultly in determining if abuse if going on unless
>> there is disclosure. This is one of the reasons why Buckley endorsed
>> disclosure. Additionally, there is another irony in that often the same
>> groups who oppose public funding for campaigns may be the same ones
>> misusing their non-profit status to further their political or partisan
>> goals, and do so with a tax exempt status. But alas, consistency is the
>> hobgoblin of small minds.
>>
>> My comments are not directed at anyone or anybody in particular so I
>> hope no one takes offense.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> For the record, CCP is not "a political advocacy group." CCP is a 501
>>> c3 that does no political advocacy. We'll be seeking a correction.
>>>
>>> Bradley Smith
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On May 15, 2015, at 6:45 PM, "Rick Hasen" <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> CCP Seeks Emergency #SCOTUS Relief in CA Donor Disclosure Case
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72513>
>>> Posted on May 15, 2015 3:42 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72513> by
>>> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> Lyle Denniston
>>> <http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/05/group-seeks-privacy-for-donor-list/>:
>>>
>>> A Virginia-based political advocacy group asked the Supreme Court on
>>> Friday to bar state officials in California from gaining access to the
>>> lists of people who donate money or services to it. The Center for
>>> Competitive Politics, a vigorous supporter of political free-speech rights
>>> that does not get involved directly in election campaigns, asked for the
>>> protection until it can file a formal appeal to the Court on the
>>> constitutional dispute.
>>>
>>> The Center’s plea (application 14A1179), along with the ruling by the
>>> U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and other Circuit Court orders,
>>> can be read here
>>> <http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/14A1179-Center-application.pdf>.
>>> It was filed with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who handles emergency matters
>>> from that geographic region. He can act on his own or share the issue with
>>> his colleagues.The identity of those who give money to the Center is
>>> provided in a document (Form 990) that it must file with the Internal
>>> Revenue Service to qualify for tax-exempt status — under tax code 501(c)(3)
>>> — as an educational organization.
>>>
>>> Ordinarily, that document remains confidential with IRS — a requirement
>>> imposed by federal law. However, a growing number of state attorneys
>>> general — including California’s — have been demanding access to
>>> organizations’ copies of that document in full form, contending that they
>>> need the financial data as they enforce state laws regulating groups that
>>> raise money within the state as charities.
>>>
>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72513&title=CCP%20Seeks%20Emergency%20%23SCOTUS%20Relief%20in%20CA%20Donor%20Disclosure%20Case&description=>
>>> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
>>> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>>> “Lawmaker’s push to expand L.A. County board could add a Latino
>>> supervisor” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72510>
>>> Posted on May 15, 2015 1:55 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72510> by
>>> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> LAT reports.
>>> <http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-county-supervisor-seats-20150514-story.html>
>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72510&title=%E2%80%9CLawmaker%E2%80%99s%20push%20to%20expand%20L.A.%20County%20board%20could%20add%20a%20Latino%20supervisor%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted in voting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
>>> “Exclusive: Wal-Mart improves lobbying disclosure after shareholder
>>> push” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72508>
>>> Posted on May 15, 2015 12:46 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72508>
>>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> Reuters reports.
>>> <http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0NY0AH20150513?irpc=932>
>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72508&title=%E2%80%9CExclusive%3A%20Wal-Mart%20improves%20lobbying%20disclosure%20after%20shareholder%20push%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>>> “Denying a Dream: Charlotte voters snared in N.C. crackdown on alleged
>>> non-citizens” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72506>
>>> Posted on May 15, 2015 12:28 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72506>
>>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> Important read
>>> <http://www.southernstudies.org/2015/05/denying-a-dream-charlotte-voters-snared-in-nc-crac.html>over
>>> at Facing South.
>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72506&title=%E2%80%9CDenying%20a%20Dream%3A%20Charlotte%20voters%20snared%20in%20N.C.%20crackdown%20on%20alleged%20non-citizens%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
>>> , The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>>> “Cash is not king: Jeb Bush’s Super PAC problem”
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72504>
>>> Posted on May 15, 2015 12:25 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72504>
>>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> Anthony Gaughan has written this piece
>>> <https://theconversation.com/cash-is-not-king-jeb-bushs-super-pac-problem-41009>
>>> for The Conversation:
>>>
>>> Thus, while Jeb Bush’s fund-raising numbers sound impressive by
>>> previous standards, his campaign war chest doesn’t scare anyone today. No
>>> candidate will monopolize Republican fund-raising in 2016. The flood of
>>> money unleashed by Citizens United means there is plenty to go around for
>>> everyone, including candidates openly hostile to the GOP establishment.
>>>
>>> If Jeb Bush is to win the nomination, he’s going to have to do it by
>>> winning over rank-and-file Republican voters. The days when the party
>>> establishment could use its fund-raising powers to control the nomination
>>> process are long gone.
>>>
>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72504&title=%E2%80%9CCash%20is%20not%20king%3A%20Jeb%20Bush%E2%80%99s%20Super%20PAC%20problem%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
>>> campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>>> “Who Makes Voting Convenient? Explaining the Adoption of Early and
>>> No-Excuse Absentee Voting in the American States”
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72502>
>>> Posted on May 15, 2015 12:22 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72502>
>>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> Daniel Biggers and Michael Hanmer have written this article
>>> <http://spa.sagepub.com/content/15/2/192.abstract> for *State Politics
>>> & Policy Quarterly*. Here is the abstract:
>>>
>>> Recent elections have witnessed substantial debate regarding the degree
>>> to which state governments facilitate access to the polls. Despite this
>>> newfound interest, however, many of the major reforms aimed at increasing
>>> voting convenience (i.e., early voting and no-excuse absentee voting) were
>>> implemented over the past four decades. Although numerous studies examine
>>> their consequences (on turnout, the composition of the electorate, and/or
>>> electoral outcomes), we know significantly less about the factors leading
>>> to the initial adoption of these policies. We attempt to provide insights
>>> into such motivations using event history analysis to identify the impact
>>> of political and demographic considerations, as well as diffusion
>>> mechanisms, on which states opted for easier ballot access. We find that
>>> adoption responded to some factors signaling the necessity of greater
>>> voting convenience in the state, and that partisanship influenced the
>>> enactment of early voting but not no-excuse absentee voting procedures.
>>>
>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72502&title=%E2%80%9CWho%20Makes%20Voting%20Convenient%3F%20Explaining%20the%20Adoption%20of%20Early%20and%20No-Excuse%20Absentee%20Voting%20in%20the%20American%20States%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
>>> “Election Laws and Agenda Setting: How Election Law Restrictiveness
>>> Shapes the Complexity of State Ballot Measures”
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72500>
>>> Posted on May 15, 2015 12:20 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72500>
>>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> Kerri Milita has written this article
>>> <http://spa.sagepub.com/content/15/2/119.abstract> for State Politics
>>> and Policy Quarterly. Here is the abstract:
>>>
>>> Recently, many U.S. states that allow citizen initiatives have passed
>>> laws designed to make it more difficult for an initiative to qualify for
>>> the ballot (e.g., by increasing the number of signatures required to get on
>>> the ballot), thereby making it harder for citizens to bypass the
>>> legislature and make direct changes to public policy. Such laws have
>>> reduced both the number of measures that make the ballot and the number
>>> that pass on Election Day. I show that laws governing access of initiatives
>>> to the ballot also shape the policy agenda; provisions making it harder for
>>> proposals to get on the ballot decrease the complexity of the initiatives
>>> on the ballot. As less complex initiatives are more likely to be understood
>>> by voters and voters are reluctant to vote for measures they do not
>>> understand, more restrictive laws actually increase the likelihood that an
>>> initiative will pass.
>>>
>>>
>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72500&title=%E2%80%9CElection%20Laws%20and%20Agenda%20Setting%3A%20How%20Election%20Law%20Restrictiveness%20Shapes%20the%20Complexity%20of%20State%20Ballot%20Measures%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted in ballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>, direct
>>> democracy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>
>>> “Democrats Play Hardball on Voting Laws Ahead of 2016″
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72497>
>>> Posted on May 15, 2015 10:26 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72497>
>>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> TIME: <http://time.com/3858135/early-voting-ohio/>
>>>
>>> The current legal challenge in Ohio is an early glimpse into some of
>>> the Democratic-led fights that will unfold over the next 18 months before
>>> the general election, as attorneys begin to aggressively challenge
>>> restrictive voting laws enacted and implemented predominantly by
>>> Republicans.
>>>
>>> “You’re going to see an increase in the number of lawsuits challenging
>>> restrictive voting laws because there is a concerted effort by some on the
>>> right to make it harder to vote,” Elias, Clinton’s campaign lawyer who
>>> filed the case, told TIME. “You will see more lawsuits because there are
>>> more bad laws.”
>>>
>>>
>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72497&title=%E2%80%9CDemocrats%20Play%20Hardball%20on%20Voting%20Laws%20Ahead%20of%202016%E2%80%B3&description=>
>>> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
>>> , The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>>> “Alphabetically Ordered Ballots and the Composition of American
>>> Legislatures” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72495>
>>> Posted on May 15, 2015 8:09 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72495> by
>>> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> Barry Edwards has written this article
>>> <http://spa.sagepub.com/content/15/2/171.abstract> for the State
>>> Politics and Policy Quarterly. Here is the abstract:
>>>
>>> Although research demonstrates that favorable ballot position can
>>> deliver candidates a small windfall of votes in local, nonpartisan, and
>>> primary elections, it is not clear whether ballot order laws have had any
>>> impact on the composition of U.S. legislatures. In this article, I estimate
>>> the substantive significance of ballot order rules by comparing the
>>> legislators of states that alphabetically order ballots to those elected by
>>> states that randomize or rotate ballot order. I also compare legislators
>>> elected by states that started or stopped alphabetically ordering ballots
>>> in recent decades. I find that states that alphabetically order ballots
>>> disproportionately elect candidates with early alphabet surnames. My
>>> research challenges the prevailing belief that ballot order affects only
>>> minor elections and suggests that seemingly innocuous rules have altered
>>> our political landscape. I conclude that arbitrary ballot ordering rules
>>> should be reformed to remedy their substantial impact on political
>>> representation.
>>>
>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72495&title=%E2%80%9CAlphabetically%20Ordered%20Ballots%20and%20the%20Composition%20of%20American%20Legislatures%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, election
>>> administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
>>> “Voting Rights for Whom? Examining the Effects of the Voting Rights
>>> Act on Latino Political Incorporation”
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72493>
>>> Posted on May 15, 2015 8:06 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72493> by
>>> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> Melissa Marschall and Amanda Rutherford have written this article
>>> <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12182/abstract;jsessionid=BED281F96B0A6D734131B7B2C9B8F66E.f03t03?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on+16th+May+from+12%3A00-14%3A00+BST+%2807%3A00-09%3A00+EDT%29+for+up+to+two+hours+for+essential+maintenance.++Apologies+for+the+inconvenience.#.VVYKRasdld8.email>
>>> for AJPS. Here is the abstract:
>>>
>>> This study applies insights from principal-agent models to examine
>>> whether and how the language assistance provisions of the Voting Rights
>>> Act, Sections 203 and 4(f)(4), affect Latino representation. Using panel
>>> data from 1984–2012, we estimate two-stage models that consider the
>>> likelihood and extent of Latino board representation for a sample of 1,661
>>> school districts. In addition, we examine how policy design as well as
>>> federal oversight and enforcement shape implementation and compliance with
>>> the language assistance provisions. Our findings not only provide the first
>>> systemic evidence that the language assistance provisions have a direct
>>> effect on Latino representation, but also link the efficacy of the language
>>> assistance provisions to the duration and consistency of coverage and the
>>> presence of federal elections observers. Overall, our study underscores the
>>> continued need for federal government involvement in protecting the voting
>>> rights of underrepresented groups, in this case, language minority citizens.
>>>
>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72493&title=%E2%80%9CVoting%20Rights%20for%20Whom%3F%20Examining%20the%20Effects%20of%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20on%20Latino%20Political%20Incorporation%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>>> Big News: Florida to Have Online Voter Registration
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72491>
>>> Posted on May 15, 2015 7:59 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72491> by
>>> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> Here is the letter
>>> <http://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Transmittal-Letter-5.15.15-SB-228.pdf>
>>> from Gov. Scott.
>>>
>>> Though the bill had bipartisan support, it had been opposed by Scott SOS
>>> appointee Detzner.
>>>
>>> This is the sort of commonsense reform that should not be mired in
>>> partisan politics. But alas….
>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72491&title=Big%20News%3A%20Florida%20to%20Have%20Online%20Voter%20Registration&description=>
>>> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
>>> , The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voting
>>> technology <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40>
>>> “Mississippi election of new Member of Congress with Louisiana form of
>>> Top Two makes case for ranked choice voting”
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72489>
>>> Posted on May 15, 2015 7:58 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72489> by
>>> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> Rob Richie.
>>> <http://www.fairvoteblog.com/2015/05/mississippi-election-of-new-member-of.html>
>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72489&title=%E2%80%9CMississippi%20election%20of%20new%20Member%20of%20Congress%20with%20Louisiana%20form%20of%20Top%20Two%20makes%20case%20for%20ranked%20choice%20voting%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>>> “Hillary Rodham Clinton Ups the Super PAC Ante”
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72487>
>>> Posted on May 15, 2015 7:48 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72487> by
>>> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> NYT’s Taking Note ed blog item.
>>> <http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/14/hillary-rodham-clinton-ups-the-super-pac-ante/?_r=0>
>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72487&title=%E2%80%9CHillary%20Rodham%20Clinton%20Ups%20the%20Super%20PAC%20Ante%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
>>> 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 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> David Schultz, Professor
>> Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
>> Hamline University
>> Department of Political Science
>> 1536 Hewitt Ave
>> MS B 1805
>> St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
>> 651.523.2858 (voice)
>> 651.523.3170 (fax)
>> http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
>> http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
>> http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
>> Twitter: @ProfDSchultz
>> My latest book: Election Law and Democratic Theory, Ashgate Publishing
>> http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9780754675433
>> FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>
>
>
> --
> David Schultz, Professor
> Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
> Hamline University
> Department of Political Science
> 1536 Hewitt Ave
> MS B 1805
> St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
> 651.523.2858 (voice)
> 651.523.3170 (fax)
> http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
> http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
> http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
> Twitter: @ProfDSchultz
> My latest book: Election Law and Democratic Theory, Ashgate Publishing
> http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9780754675433
> FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
> ------------------------------
>
> Spam
> <https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09OsFjlAW&m=ce7d92364b07&t=20150516&c=s>
> Phish/Fraud
> <https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09OsFjlAW&m=ce7d92364b07&t=20150516&c=p>
> Not spam
> <https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09OsFjlAW&m=ce7d92364b07&t=20150516&c=n>
> Forget previous vote
> <https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09OsFjlAW&m=ce7d92364b07&t=20150516&c=f>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp://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 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
--
David Schultz, Professor
Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
Hamline University
Department of Political Science
1536 Hewitt Ave
MS B 1805
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
651.523.2858 (voice)
651.523.3170 (fax)
http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
Twitter: @ProfDSchultz
My latest book: Election Law and Democratic Theory, Ashgate Publishing
http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9780754675433
FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150516/5d7ca18c/attachment-0001.html>
View list directory