[EL] CCP Emergency SCOTUS relief/more news
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Sat May 16 14:09:38 PDT 2015
Actually, there were so many stunning errors in your original post that it
had little to do with "what the law currently says." Mr. Zall did a good
job in pointing at least some of them out. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 5/16/2015 3:52:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
dschultz at hamline.edu writes:
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_ (mailto: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_
(mailto: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_
(mailto: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_
(mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu)
[_law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_ (mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu) ] on behalf
of Smith, Brad [_BSmith at law.capital.edu_ (mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu) ]
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 10:18 AM
To: Schultz, David A.; _info at lycanlaw.com_ (mailto:info at lycanlaw.com)
Cc: _law-election at UCI.edu_ (mailto: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_ (tel:614.236.6317)
http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
____________________________________
From: _law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu)
[_law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_ (mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu) ] on behalf
of Schultz, David A. [_dschultz at hamline.edu_ (mailto:dschultz at hamline.edu) ]
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 12:34 PM
To: _info at lycanlaw.com_ (mailto:info at lycanlaw.com)
Cc: _law-election at UCI.edu_ (mailto: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_
(mailto:info at lycanlaw.com) <_info at lycanlaw.com_ (mailto: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_ (tel:859-425-1047) office
_859-621-8888_ (tel: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_
(mailto: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_
(mailto: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_
(mailto: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://electionlawblog.org/?p=72513&title=CCP%20Seeks%20Emergency%20#SCOTUS%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._ (htt
p://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://electionlawblog.org/?p=72510&title=“Lawmaker’
s%20push%20to%20expand%20L.A.%20County%20board%20could%20add%20a%20Latino%20supervisor”&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://electionlawblog.org/?p=72508&title=“
Exclusive:%20Wal-Mart%20improves%20lobbying%20disclosure%20after%20shareholder%20push”&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://electionlawblog.org/?p=72506&title=“
Denying%20a%20Dream:%20Charlotte%20voters%20snared%20in%20N.C.%20crackdown%20on%20alleged%20non-citizens”
&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://electionlawblog.org/?p=72504&title=“Cash%20is%20not%20king:%20Jeb%20Bush’
s%20Super%20PAC%20problem”&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://electionlawblog.org/?p=72502&title=“
Who%20Makes%20Voting%20Convenient?%20Explaining%20the%20Adoption%20of%20Early%20and%20No-Excuse%20Absentee%20Voting%20
in%20the%20American%20States”&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://electionlawblog.org/?p=72500&title=“
Election%20Laws%20and%20Agenda%20Setting:%20How%20Election%20Law%20Restrictiveness%20Shapes%20the%20Complexity%20of%20
State%20Ballot%20Measures”&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://electionlawblog.org/?p=72497&title=“
Democrats%20Play%20Hardball%20on%20Voting%20Laws%20Ahead%20of%202016″&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://electionlawblog.org/?p=72495&title=“
Alphabetically%20Ordered%20Ballots%20and%20the%20Composition%20of%20American%20Legislatures”&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=BED281F
96B0A6D734131B7B2C9B8F66E.f03t03?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+
disrupted+on+16th+May+from+12:00-14:00+BST+(07:00-09:00+EDT)+for+up+to+two+h
ours+for+essential+maintenance.++Apologies+for+the+inconvenienc
e.#.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://electionlawblog.org/?p=72493&title=“
Voting%20Rights%20for%20Whom?%20Examining%20the%20Effects%20of%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20on%20Latino%20Political
%20Incorporation”&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://electionlawblog.org/?p=72491&title=Big%20News:%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://electionlawblog.org/?p=72489&title=“
Mississippi%20election%20of%20new%20Member%20of%20Congress%20with%20Louisiana%20form%20of%20Top%20Two%20makes%20case%2
0for%20ranked%20choice%20voting”&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://electionlawblog.org/?p=72487&title=“
Hillary%20Rodham%20Clinton%20Ups%20the%20Super%20PAC%20Ante”&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 92697-8000
_949.824.3072_ (tel:949.824.3072) - office
_949.824.0495_ (tel:949.824.0495) - fax
_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu)
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
_http://electionlawblog.org_ (http://electionlawblog.org/)
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto: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_
(mailto: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_ (tel:651.523.2858) (voice)
_651.523.3170_ (tel: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_
(mailto: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_ (tel:651.523.2858) (voice)
_651.523.3170_ (tel: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_
(mailto: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_
(mailto: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_ (tel:949.824.3072) - office
_949.824.0495_ (tel:949.824.0495) - fax
_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu)
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
_http://electionlawblog.org_ (http://electionlawblog.org/)
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto: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_
(mailto: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150516/5472a396/attachment-0001.html>
View list directory