[EL] ELB News and Commentary 5/22/15

Rick Hasen rhasen at law.uci.edu
Fri May 22 08:09:03 PDT 2015


    FEC Commissioner Ravel Reponds to My Post About Commissioner Goodman
    and Partisan Bias <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72709>

Posted onMay 22, 2015 8:02 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72709>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Yesterday I posted a link to an article quoting FEC Commissioner Goodman 
claiming that there are many more complaints against Republican and 
conservative campaign finance organizations than liberal and Democratic 
ones. Ioffered three potential reasons 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72688> for the disparity. FEC 
Commissioner Ravel has sent along the following response:

    I think you did not mention the real import of what Goodman said on
    the record. The FEC acts as the arbiters of all cases that come
    before the Commission. The FEC itself makes no distinction – any
    complaint which is filed will be reviewed. So for the Rs to refuse
    to handle matters that relate to one side or the other for partisan
    reasons is like a Judge refusing to handle cases because he or she
    thinks that the docket is skewed because too many cases being
    brought against men, or democrats, or whatever other distinguishing
    factor that they wish to impose. This is at its heart turning the
    decision making into a partisan function, which undermines the basic
    function of the FEC.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72709&title=FEC%20Commissioner%20Ravel%20Reponds%20to%20My%20Post%20About%20Commissioner%20Goodman%20and%20Partisan%20Bias&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,federal 
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>Edit 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=72709&action=edit>


    Fascinating Interview with Don Green on Faked Survey Data
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72707>

Posted onMay 22, 2015 7:57 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72707>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Here. 
<http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/05/co-author-of-the-faked-study-speaks-out.html>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72707&title=Fascinating%20Interview%20with%20Don%20Green%20on%20Faked%20Survey%20Data&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>Edit 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=72707&action=edit>


    “Missouri secretary of state candidate files voter ID measure”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72705>

Posted onMay 22, 2015 7:52 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72705>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

AP reports. 
<http://www.joplinglobe.com/news/missouri-secretary-of-state-candidate-files-voter-id-measure/article_a5bffcaa-008e-11e5-91d5-03c4a5bb4fe7.html>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72705&title=%E2%80%9CMissouri%20secretary%20of%20state%20candidate%20files%20voter%20ID%20measure%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>Edit 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=72705&action=edit>


    “A Court Failing the Nation” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72703>

Posted onMay 22, 2015 7:46 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72703>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Gene Nichol <http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/a-court-failing-the-nation>on 
the Supreme Court and campaign finance at the ACS blog.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72703&title=%E2%80%9CA%20Court%20Failing%20the%20Nation%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme 
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>Edit 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=72703&action=edit>


    “Gyrocopter pilot: I will take campaign finance reform fight to jury
    if needed” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72701>

Posted onMay 22, 2015 7:42 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72701>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo. 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/gyrocopter-pilot-i-will-take-campaign-finance-reform-fight-to-jury-if-needed/2015/05/21/d221044a-ffeb-11e4-8b6c-0dcce21e223d_story.html>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72701&title=%E2%80%9CGyrocopter%20pilot%3A%20I%20will%20take%20campaign%20finance%20reform%20fight%20to%20jury%20if%20needed%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>Edit 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=72701&action=edit>


    “F.E.C. Member Says System Tilts Against Conservative Groups”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72699>

Posted onMay 22, 2015 7:40 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72699>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT. 
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/21/f-e-c-member-charges-bias-against-conservative-groups/?_r=0>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72699&title=%E2%80%9CF.E.C.%20Member%20Says%20System%20Tilts%20Against%20Conservative%20Groups%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>Edit 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=72699&action=edit>


    “Hillary’s Supreme Court Litmus Test”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72697>

Posted onMay 22, 2015 7:39 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72697>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Wall Street Journal editorializes. 
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillarys-supreme-court-litmus-test-1432250132>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72697&title=%E2%80%9CHillary%E2%80%99s%20Supreme%20Court%20Litmus%20Test%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>Edit 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=72697&action=edit>


    Response from the GAB on Adequacy of Wisconsin Voter ID Funding
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72694>

Posted onMay 22, 2015 7:32 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72694>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

In response to an earlier post,WI GAB Has Only Tiny Budget to Get Out 
Word About New Voter ID Requirements 
<http://wi%20gab%20has%20only%20tiny%20budget%20to%20get%20out%20word%20about%20new%20voter%20id%20requirements/>, 
Reid Magney, public information officer for the GAB writes:

    Your tweet about GAB generated a call from MSNBC.

    FYI, we haven’t specifically asked the Legislature for funding.  We
    made them aware that if they want a campaign, it’s a policy decision
    for them to make.  And they have some time to make that decision.

    The budget we have is adequate to update the campaign to be ready if
    they want to spend money to put it on the air.  If they don’t, we
    can still use free and earned media to get the message out, just not
    as widely.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72694&title=Response%20from%20the%20GAB%20on%20Adequacy%20of%20Wisconsin%20Voter%20ID%20Funding&description=>
Posted inThe Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>Edit 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=72694&action=edit>


    Best Wishes to Joe Trotter… <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72692>

Posted onMay 22, 2015 7:27 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72692>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

who is leaving the Center for Competitive Politics after 4 1/2 years 
asmedia manager 
<http://www.campaignfreedom.org/about/staff/joe-trotter/>. Joe and I did 
not always agree on substance (ok, we almost never agreed), but I always 
found him to be courteous, helpful, and friendly. Not always true when 
the ideological disagreements are this pronounced. Good luck Joe!

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72692&title=Best%20Wishes%20to%20Joe%20Trotter%E2%80%A6&description=>
Posted inelection law biz <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>Edit 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=72692&action=edit>


    “Kansas Legislation Moves Local Elections, Eliminates Presidential
    Primary – and Gives SoS Prosecutorial Powers”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72690>

Posted onMay 22, 2015 7:25 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72690>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

A ChapinBlog. 
<http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/electionacademy/2015/05/kansas_legislation_moves_local.php>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72690&title=%E2%80%9CKansas%20Legislation%20Moves%20Local%20Elections%2C%20Eliminates%20Presidential%20Primary%20%E2%80%93%20and%20Gives%20SoS%20Prosecutorial%20Powers%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>Edit 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=72690&action=edit>


    “Goodman: FEC Backlog Mainly Includes Cases Against Republicans,
    Conservatives” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72688>

Posted onMay 21, 2015 6:35 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72688>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bloomberg BNA 
<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=69161051&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0g7b0p2r1&split=0>:

    Republican commissioners on the Federal Election Commission are
    reluctant to approve new procedures to speed up resolution of
    pending campaign finance enforcement matters because the backlog of
    pending complaints at the FEC involves many more Republicans and
    conservative groups than Democrats and liberal groups, according to
    Republican FEC Commissioner Lee Goodman.
    Of 73 cases that have been analyzed by agency staff but not yet been
    acted on by the FEC commissioners, about three-quarters of the
    matters with a partisan respondent involve Republicans or
    conservatives, Goodman said May 21 at an FECopen meeting
    <http://www.fec.gov/agenda/2015/agenda20150521.shtm>.
    While FEC Republicans are hesitant to go along with new procedures
    on enforcement matters, Goodman suggested they might consider more
    informal agreements to move matters along more speedily.

This is a very interesting development, because even though the FEC has 
been splitting in hard cases along party lines, the argument has been 
made, with some force, that the split is primarily ideological, not 
partisan, with Republican commissioners supporting less regulation and 
Democratic commissioners supporting more. (Thoughas I’ve noted before 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72257>, the ideological position of the 
parties could help each of their parties in the long run.) But now this 
comment by Commissioner Goodman threatens to turn this into a more 
conventional partisan battle.
Here are three reasons why there might be more complaints against 
Republican-allied groups:
1. Republican groups are more opposed to campaign restrictions than 
Democratic groups, and are more apt to do things of questionable 
legality under the law out of the belief they have a constitutional 
right to do so or because they think they can get away with it thanks to 
a deadlocked FEC.
2. Democratic groups are more reluctant to push the envelope on campaign 
restrictions, and hence draw complaints, because they are ideologically 
opposed to loose campaign finance rules. (Though Hillary Clinton’s 
recent actions with Correct the Record undermine that to some extent.)
3. Democrats are more willing to use the FEC as a political weapon.
I suppose one’s views on whether it is a problem that more 
Republican-allied groups are the subject of complaints at the FEC 
depends upon whether you believe the problem is 1, 2, or 3.
Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72688&title=%E2%80%9CGoodman%3A%20FEC%20Backlog%20Mainly%20Includes%20Cases%20Against%20Republicans%2C%20Conservatives%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,federal 
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>Edit 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=72688&action=edit>


    “Department of Justice Proposes Legislation to Improve Access to
    Voting for American Indians and Alaska Natives”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72686>

Posted onMay 21, 2015 6:24 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72686>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Press release 
<http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-proposes-legislation-improve-access-voting-american-indians-and-alaska>:

    Today the Department of Justice proposed legislation that would
    require states or localities whose territory includes part or all of
    an Indian reservation, an Alaska Native village, or other tribal
    lands to locate at least one polling place in a venue selected by
    the tribal government.

    “The Department of Justice is deeply committed to ensuring that
    every eligible individual is able to exercise his or her fundamental
    right to vote,” said Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch.  “That’s
    why, today, I am calling on Congress to help remove the significant
    and unnecessary barriers that for too long have confronted American
    Indians and Alaska Natives attempting to cast their ballots.  The
    legislation we recommend today will make this nation stronger by
    extending meaningful voting opportunities to native populations, by
    encouraging full participation in our democratic institutions, and
    by bringing us closer to our most cherished ideals.”

    “As citizens of a nation founded upon the principles of liberty and
    equality, Native Americans have faced unacceptable barriers to
    participating in the franchise, a situation aggravated by a history
    of discrimination, poverty and — significantly — great distances
    from polling places,” said Acting Associate Attorney General Stuart
    Delery.  “In spite of many reforms made possible by the Voting
    Rights Act and other measures, voting rates among Native Americans
    remain disproportionately low.  The legislation proposed today would
    address this unacceptable gap and we look forward to working with
    Congress to see it enacted.”

    American Indians and Alaska Natives have faced significant obstacles
    that have prevented them from enjoying equal access to polling
    places and equal opportunities to cast a ballot.  In addition to
    suffering from a long history of discrimination, the distance many
    American Indian and Alaska Native citizens must travel to reach a
    polling place presents a substantial and ongoing barrier to full
    voter participation.  Following formal consultations with Indian
    tribes, the Department of Justice believes that there is a pressing
    need for federal legislation to ensure equal access to voting by
    Native American voters.

    Today, the Department of Justice sent a letter to Congress with a
    legislative proposal, which would ensure that American Indian and
    Alaska Natives have access to at least one polling place in their
    communities to cast their ballots and require a number of additional
    obligations to ensure parity with other polling places.

    This legislative proposal, a stand-alone bill, would:

      * Enable Native Americans to vote on or near tribal lands, by
        requiring any state or local election administrator whose
        territory includes part or all of an Indian reservation, an
        Alaska Native village, or other tribal lands to locate at least
        one polling place in a venue selected, and made available for
        the purpose of conducting elections, by the tribal government.
      * Require states to make voting machines, ballots, and other
        voting materials and equipment available at these tribally
        located polling places to the same extent that they are
        available at other polling places in the state.
      * Require states to provide compensation and other benefits to
        election officials and poll workers at these polling places to
        the same extent as at other polling places in the state.
      * Require states to use the same voting procedures at these
        polling places as at other polling places in the state —
        potentially including election-day voting, early voting, the
        hours during which polling places are open, the operation of
        voting mechanisms or systems, and same-day registration.
      * Allow states to meet their obligations by either creating new
        polling places or relocating existing ones.
      * Allow tribes with larger populations or land bases to request
        more than one polling place.
      * Make the states’ obligations contingent on the tribe filing a
        timely request and certifying that it has arranged for access
        to, and appropriate staffing for, the polling facility.
      * Require the tribe to ensure that the staffers for the polling
        place are properly trained.
      * Require the tribe to ensure that the polling place will be open
        and accessible to all eligible citizens who reside in the
        precinct, regardless of whether they are Indians or non-Indians.

    The Department of Justice is committed to ensuring equal access to
    voting for Native American voters.  This proposal would address
    serious voting obstacles faced by citizens who are members of Indian
    tribes and Alaska Native villages; provide equal access to polling
    places for all eligible citizens, including members of tribes and
    villages; reinforce our nation’s commitment to the fundamental right
    to vote; and strengthen the government-to-government relationship
    between the United States and tribal nations.

    In 1975, recognizing the barriers to full participation that Native
    Americans continued to confront, Congress expressly included
    American Indians and Alaska Natives as protected groups under the
    special provisions of the Voting Rights Act.  Sections 4 and 5 of
    the Voting Rights Act prohibited many jurisdictions with large
    American Indian or Alaska Native populations from changing their
    voting laws until they could prove that the change would not create
    new barriers to effective participation.  A number of jurisdictions
    with large Native American populations that have limited English
    proficiency — in six states, including Alaska — are also covered by
    Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires bilingual
    election materials and assistance.

    Despite these reforms, participation rates among American Indians
    and Alaska Natives continue to lag behind turnout rates among
    non-Native voters.  For example, in Alaska, turnout among Alaska
    Natives often falls 15 to 20 or more percentage points below the
    non-Native turnout rate.  The causes of these disparities are
    complex, but the reality is that political participation by Native
    Americans consistently trails that of non-Natives and unequal access
    to polling places is a significant contributing factor.

    Review the legislation
    at_www.justice.gov/tribal/department-justice-proposes-legislation-improve-access-voting-american-indians-and-alaska_
    <http://www.justice.gov/tribal/department-justice-proposes-legislation-improve-access-voting-american-indians-and-alaska>.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72686&title=%E2%80%9CDepartment%20of%20Justice%20Proposes%20Legislation%20to%20Improve%20Access%20to%20Voting%20for%20American%20Indians%20and%20Alaska%20Natives%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>Edit 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=72686&action=edit>


    “Rove’s Crossroads PAC Is No Longer G.O.P.’s ‘Big Dog’”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72684>

Posted onMay 21, 2015 6:22 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72684>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT reports. 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/22/us/politics/american-crossroads-facing-challenges-to-its-political-power.html?smid=tw-share>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72684&title=%E2%80%9CRove%E2%80%99s%20Crossroads%20PAC%20Is%20No%20Longer%20G.O.P.%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%98Big%20Dog%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>Edit 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=72684&action=edit>


    Goodbye Sitemeter <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72679>

Posted onMay 21, 2015 4:49 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72679>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

For a number of years, I have been using Sitemeter to keep track of 
visitors to the page. I now have Google Analytics too, but what was nice 
about Sitemeter is that I could see the domains (not the individual IP 
addresses) of visitors. For example, I know that people from the Supreme 
Court read the blog from time to time (could be anyone there), as well 
as many other government officials (from the Executive Office of the 
President, Senate, House, state governments), educational institutions, 
and many other places.  It also lets me see where the traffic comes 
from, which often leads me to interesting other stories. [Update, a 
reader on Twitter showed me how I can access some of the information 
about domains I was looking for.]

The problem is that Sitemeter has been bought by a company that puts 
adware on computers, and it is redirecting people to the wrong sites and 
slowing things down. So, asothers 
<https://productforums.google.com/forum/#%21topic/blogger/_rwBSluJk5k>have 
<http://siderite.blogspot.com/2015/03/goodbye-sitemeter-too.html>done 
<http://mostlyexchange.blogspot.it/2014/06/goodbye-sitemeter.html>, it 
is time to day good-bye. Before I go, here are some statistics running 
from some time in the mid-2000s: about 2.8 million individual visits and 
4.8 million page views. That’s chump change for a large website, but for 
a niche site like mine, I’m pretty happy (especially given the 1,000+ 
people on the election law listserv who get full text posts each day and 
need not visit the blog itself.)

So, keep on reading, folks, even if I won’t know where you are coming 
from anymore!

Screen Shot 2015-05-21 at 4.42.03 PM 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2015-05-21-at-4.42.03-PM.png>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72679&title=Goodbye%20Sitemeter&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>Edit 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=72679&action=edit>


    “Win Lunch with Bush; Owe Uncle Sam; For political sweepstakes
    winners, there really is no such thing as a ‘free’ lunch.”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72675>

Posted onMay 21, 2015 3:07 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72675>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Shane Goldmacher 
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/jeb-bush-free-lunch-tax-20150521>for 
National Journal:

    Marcus Owens, a lawyer with the IRS for 25 years and now an attorney
    at Loeb and Loeb in Washington D.C., said that those issued a 1099
    form could be caught fairly easily by the IRS if the taxes go
    unpaid. “The IRS actually has a computer matching program for those
    1099s,” Owens said.

    Flights, hotels, meals, transportation and other perks are all
    taxable, he said. The only part of the winnings that is untaxed is
    the time with the candidates themselves. “The IRS takes the position
    that the actual face time with the person is of no value,” Owens said.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72675&title=%E2%80%9CWin%20Lunch%20with%20Bush%3B%20Owe%20Uncle%20Sam%3B%20For%20political%20sweepstakes%20winners%2C%20there%20really%20is%20no%20such%20thing%20as%20a%20%E2%80%98free%E2%80%99%20lunch.%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>Edit 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=72675&action=edit>


    WI GAB Has Only Tiny Budget to Get Out Word About New Voter ID
    Requirements <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72671>

Posted onMay 21, 2015 12:22 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72671>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Troubling report 
<http://www.gab.wi.gov/sites/default/files/event/74/h1_addendum_voter_id_implementation_pdf_19881.pdf>from 
the GAB, indicating a budget of only $34,000 to get out the word about 
mandatory voter id requirements:

    The G.A.B. staff does not believe that voluntary efforts and free
    media will be adequate to the task of getting the word out to voters
    about the need to show an acceptable photo ID to receive their
    ballot in all future elections, especially during a presidential
    election year. Staff is also concerned that without a robust public
    information campaign, certain elderly voters who are exempt from the
    requirement will believe they need to have a current photo ID. In
    2011 and 2012 staff heard numerous stories about families who
    experienced unnecessary inconvenience and hardship in taking elderly
    relatives to the DMV because they did not understand the exemption
    for voters who are indefinitely confined due to age, illness,
    disability or infirmity. Additionally, the DMV’s new procedure to
    help people without birth certificates get a free state ID for
    voting is not well known. Re-launching the Bring It to the Ballot
    campaign in 2016 will be a significant expense which is not
    currently included in the agency’s proposed FY 2015-2017 budget.
    Staff has alerted members of the Joint Committee on Finance that the
    Board will be seeking funding for public education. It will be a
    policy and fiscal decision for the Legislature to determine at what
    level the campaign should be funded. The staff is still working with
    KW2 to develop detailed estimates and plans for a cost-effective,
    multi-media public education campaign. Based on initial work, we
    believe the cost will be at least $300,000 and could be as much as
    $500,000. This compares to the Board’s original budget of
    approximately $430,000 for all of 2012.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72671&title=WI%20GAB%20Has%20Only%20Tiny%20Budget%20to%20Get%20Out%20Word%20About%20New%20Voter%20ID%20Requirements&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>Edit 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=72671&action=edit>


    “One county at a time, vote centers coming to Texas”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72669>

Posted onMay 21, 2015 12:18 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72669>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

That’s the lead story in this week’sElectionline Weekly 
<http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly>.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72669&title=%E2%80%9COne%20county%20at%20a%20time%2C%20vote%20centers%20coming%20to%20Texas%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>Edit 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=72669&action=edit>


    “How the Money Primary is Undermining Voting Rights”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72667>

Posted onMay 21, 2015 12:16 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72667>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Ari Berman cover 
story<http://www.thenation.com/article/207713/how-money-primary-undermining-voting-rights>in 
the new issue of /The Nation./

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72667&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20the%20Money%20Primary%20is%20Undermining%20Voting%20Rights%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Plutocrats United 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>Edit 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=72667&action=edit>


    FEC Commissioner Weintraub Statement on Disclosure Rulemaking
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72665>

Posted onMay 21, 2015 12:14 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72665>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Here. 
<http://www.fec.gov/members/weintraub/statements/Weintraub_McCutcheon_NPRM_Motion_Statement.pdf>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72665&title=FEC%20Commissioner%20Weintraub%20Statement%20on%20Disclosure%20Rulemaking&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,federal 
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>Edit 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=72665&action=edit>


-- 
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150522/ad7a7e3f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150522/ad7a7e3f/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screen-Shot-2015-05-21-at-4.42.03-PM-300x289.png
Type: image/png
Size: 75909 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150522/ad7a7e3f/attachment-0001.png>


View list directory