[EL] CCP Emergency SCOTUS relief/more news
Schultz, David A.
dschultz at hamline.edu
Sat May 16 14:00:44 PDT 2015
Bill: Still leaping to a conclusion that I support her because I refuse
to say do not. Tisk tisk. How ad hominem or McCarthyish. Maybe some
of us are actually non-partisan or at least do our best to separate our
policy views or arguments from our partisan positions. That is the mark of
a good teacher and scholar as opposed to an advocate. I would love to see
more of that and less partisanship masking itself as that on this
listserv. Finally I did say on this listserv Clinton is a hypocrite when
it comes to what she says about money and politics. Note that.
On May 16, 2015 3:24 PM, "Bill Maurer" <wmaurer at ij.org> wrote:
> Well, technically, I didn't accuse you of supporting Secretary Clinton
> (and I think you do or you wouldn't phrase it as being "accused" of
> supporting her) and I wasn't making a Republican/Democrat distinction. My
> point was more that, with some notable exceptions, I've not heard much from
> the reform community that Secretary Clinton should first cast the beam out
> of her own eye before seeking to cast the mote out of her neighbor's. Her
> becoming such a prominent proponent of amending the First Amendment without
> being immediately and loudly challenged by reformers to do so is troubling.
> If you've done so, I would love to read it.
> ------------------------------
> *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 12:50 PM
> *To:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Cc:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] CCP Emergency SCOTUS relief/more news
>
> 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
>> Phish/Fraud
>> Not spam
>> Forget previous vote
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>>
>> ...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150516/b167183b/attachment.html>
View list directory