[EL] CCP Emergency SCOTUS relief/more news

Sat May 16 14:48:04 PDT 2015

This is getting pointless, as I can't see how anyone can read either of my posts as somehow having to do with you supporting Hillary Clinton. But if want to think that what I was saying was about , and whether that's "McCarthyite" or not, I'll just let the Dude respond and wish you a good day.

[X]

________________________________
From: Schultz, David A. [dschultz at hamline.edu]
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 2:00 PM
To: Bill Maurer; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: RE: [EL] CCP Emergency SCOTUS relief/more news

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<mailto: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<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 12:50 PM
To: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto: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<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 ¡ª under tax code 501(c)(3) ¡ª as an educational organization.

Ordinarily, that document remains confidential with IRS ¡ª a requirement imposed by federal law.  However, a growing number of state attorneys general ¡ª including California¡¯s ¡ª 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¡å<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¨C2012, 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 92697-8000
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

_______________________________________________
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
Phish/Fraud
Not spam
Forget previous vote
_______________________________________________
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
<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>

...
________________________________

Spam<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09OsJ0K50&m=2cf24f0f0678&t=20150516&c=s>
Phish/Fraud<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09OsJ0K50&m=2cf24f0f0678&t=20150516&c=p>
Not spam<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09OsJ0K50&m=2cf24f0f0678&t=20150516&c=n>
Forget previous vote<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09OsJ0K50&m=2cf24f0f0678&t=20150516&c=f>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150516/315e2254/attachment.html>