[EL] more news 5/22/15

Fri May 22 14:46:01 PDT 2015

    “Maryland governor vetoes felon voting rights bill”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72730>

Posted onMay 22, 2015 2:15 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72730>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

MSNBC reports. 
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/maryland-governor-vetoes-felon-voting-rights-bill>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72730&title=%E2%80%9CMaryland%20governor%20vetoes%20felon%20voting%20rights%20bill%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted infelon voting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=66>

    “Sullivan County Second Home Owners Voting Rights Upheld”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72728>

Posted onMay 22, 2015 2:12 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72728>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

New York Election News reports 
<https://nyelectionsnews.wordpress.com/2015/05/22/sullivan-county-second-home-owners-voting-rights-upheld/>.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72728&title=%E2%80%9CSullivan%20County%20Second%20Home%20Owners%20Voting%20Rights%20Upheld%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

    It Just Gets Uglier at the Wisconsin Supreme Court
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72726>

Posted onMay 22, 2015 1:18 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72726>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Patrick Marley 
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/crooks-says-roggensack-threatened-to-throw-justices-off-cases-b99505396z1-304738231.html>:

    The court was not scheduled to meet to discuss cases in May under a
    calendar it adopted last year.

    On May 13, an assistant to Roggensack sent a note to the justices
    saying the court would meet privately to discuss three cases on May
    18, when the justices were to gather to swear in the Marquette
    graduates.

    Bradley wrote back noting that court rules don’t allow adding
    meetings without the agreement of all seven justices. She said she
    wouldn’t be at the May 18 ceremonies — she didn’t give a reason —
    and objected to the court meeting on cases that day.

    On May 16, Abrahamson wrote to say she wouldn’t be available May 18,
    but gave no reason. Roggensack stressed that she thought it was
    important for the justices to be there.

    “The admissions ceremony is so important to our new lawyers and to
    their families and friends,” Roggensack wrote. “It is unfortunate
    that three justices have chosen…not to participate.”

    She went on to write that the other justices would meet to discuss
    the cases and needed Abrahamson, Bradley and Crooks to send emails
    before the meeting started to say how they would vote on the cases.

    “If we do not have your votes to consider at conference, the
    opinions will show any justice who does not send in his or her vote
    for consideration at decision conference as having withdrawn from
    the case,” Roggensack wrote.

    That prompted a strongly worded reply from Crooks on May 17.

    “The closed conference that you have scheduled for May 18, 2015, is
    a violation of our rules, since it was not on the court’s calendar,
    and the unanimous consent required has not been received,” he wrote.
    “Despite that, you apparently have decided to proceed. I object.

    “The email that you sent on May 16, 2015, sets forth a deadline that
    my votes on three cases must be received before the unauthorized
    conference, or I will be considered as having withdrawn from
    participation in those cases. You have unilaterally decided, without
    any authority, to exclude me from participation in those cases. Such
    an action by you is without precedent. Obviously I object. If you
    take such action, I intend to notify the attorneys for the parties
    in each case of your unauthorized action, and that I did not
    withdraw from participation.”

    In response, Roggensack backed off slightly. She wrote that it would
    be helpful to have the votes of the absent justices before the
    meeting. But if they missed that deadline and submitted them by noon
    on May 19, “we will try to accommodate them,” she wrote.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72726&title=It%20Just%20Gets%20Uglier%20at%20the%20Wisconsin%20Supreme%20Court&description=>
Posted injudicial elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>

    “How to build an American shtetl — See: Bloomingburg, N.Y.”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72724>

Posted onMay 22, 2015 12:36 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72724>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Your weekend must-read 
<http://www.jta.org/2015/05/22/news-opinion/united-states/how-to-build-an-american-shtetl-see-bloomingburg-n-y>from 
the JTA.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72724&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20to%20build%20an%20American%20shtetl%20%E2%80%94%20See%3A%20Bloomingburg%2C%20N.Y.%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted invoting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>

    “How Scott Walker and His Allies Hijacked the Wisconsin Supreme
    Court; And what it means for the probe into alleged campaign
    violations by Walker and conservative dark-money groups.”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72722>

Posted onMay 22, 2015 12:26 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72722>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Pema Levy 
<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/scott-walker-wisconsin-supreme-court>for 
Mother Jones.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72722&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20Scott%20Walker%20and%20His%20Allies%20Hijacked%20the%20Wisconsin%20Supreme%20Court%3B%20And%20what%20it%20means%20for%20the%20probe%20into%20alleged%20campaign%20violations%20by%20Walker%20and%20conservative%20dark-money%20groups.%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,judicial elections 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>

    New Bill to Blunt Effect of Bad #SCOTUS Redistricting Ruling in
    Arizona Case <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72719>

Posted onMay 22, 2015 12:11 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72719>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Within the next month or so, the Supreme Court is poised to issue its 
opinion inArizona State Legislature v. Arizona State Redistricting 
Commission 
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/arizona-state-legislature-v-arizona-independent-redistricting-commission/?wpmp_switcher=desktop>. 
The key question is whether state can use independent redistricting 
commissions (without the involvement of the legislature) to pass plans 
for congressional districting. The Constitution gives 
state/legislatures/the power to set the rules for congressional 
elections, unless Congress steps in and sets rules (as it does, for 
example, in requiring states to use only single member districts for 
congressional elections.) These independent redistricting commissions 
are used in other states, including California, and many were created 
through an initiative process which gets around the self-interest which 
swirls around legislatively-drawn districts. A ruling against the 
Arizona commission would strike a big blow against these efforts to 
limit partisan gerrymandering.

Well now there is an effort in Congress to blunt the effect of such a 
ruling if it comes.  According to aCommon Cause press release 
<http://www.commoncause.org/press/press-releases/congressmen-introduce-citizen-redistricting-bill.html>, 
“Common Cause is pleased that U.S. Reps. Dana Rohrabacher, R-CA, and 
Alan Lowenthal, D-CA, have introducedH.R. 2501, the Citizens’ Districts 
Preservation Act <http://lowenthal.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hr2501.pdf>. 
This bill would preserve until after the next census congressional 
districts drawn by citizen-led independent and bipartisan commissions 
created to end gerrymandering.” See also ,this release 
<http://lowenthal.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398631> from 
Reps. Rohrabacher/Lowenthal, plus anop-ed 
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-alan-lowenthal/let-the-voters-control-co_b_7422278.html>.

It is not clear that the bill has much chance of going anywhere in 
Congress (what does these days?) particularly in time to affect the next 
elections. The partisan incentives are all mixed up here, and vary from 
state to state (e.g., Republicans in CA love independent redistricting 
while Arizona Republicans hate it, in part given the control of each 
state’s legislature).

Further, there are some serious constitutional questions about this 
bill, if it passes. It is not clear if Congress can bless the use of 
redistricting commissions over the objections of state legislatures. 
Perhaps this bill is okay if it is seen as Congress simply approving 
particular congressional districts (although those districts were drawn 
by commissions). Perhaps there is a problem under /Shelby County v. 
Holder/‘s equal sovereignty provisions (that’s the case striking down 
the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act applied only to 
some states) because this bill applies only to 6 states. There is a 
debate on this topic beginning on the election law listserv, although I 
think there is no way to know of the bill’s constitutionality at least 
until we read the /Arizona /case.

But with all the talk about whether Congress will get around an adverse 
Obamacare ruling if one comes, it may be the /Arizona/case which prompts 
a congressional reaction.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72719&title=New%20Bill%20to%20Blunt%20Effect%20of%20Bad%20%23SCOTUS%20Redistricting%20Ruling%20in%20Arizona%20Case&description=>
Posted inElections Clause 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>,redistricting 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

    “Florida gyrocopter mail carrier pleads not guilty as supporters
    pick up his cause (w/video)” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72717>

Posted onMay 22, 2015 11:11 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72717>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The /Tampa Bay Times/reports. 
<http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/florida-gyrocopter-pilot-back-in-court-for-landing-on-capitol-lawn/2230527>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72717&title=%E2%80%9CFlorida%20gyrocopter%20mail%20carrier%20pleads%20not%20guilty%20as%20supporters%20pick%20up%20his%20cause%20%28w%2Fvideo%29%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

    “Liberal operatives paid big bucks by embattled pro-Clinton super
    PAC” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72715>

Posted onMay 22, 2015 11:10 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72715>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

CPI reports. 
<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/05/22/17381/liberal-operatives-paid-big-bucks-embattled-pro-clinton-super-pac>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72715&title=%E2%80%9CLiberal%20operatives%20paid%20big%20bucks%20by%20embattled%20pro-Clinton%20super%20PAC%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

    “Disabled L.A. man’s desire to vote leads to probe of alleged state
    violations” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72713>

Posted onMay 22, 2015 8:30 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72713>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

LA Times. 
<http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-disability-voting-20150522-story.html#page=1>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72713&title=%E2%80%9CDisabled%20L.A.%20man%E2%80%99s%20desire%20to%20vote%20leads%20to%20probe%20of%20alleged%20state%20violations%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

    “Karl Rove’s Crossroads Empire Adds a New Senate Defense Arm; A new
    secret-money nonprofit branch will focus on defending the GOP
    majority.” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72711>

Posted onMay 22, 2015 8:24 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72711>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Shane Goldmacher 
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/karl-rove-s-crossroads-empire-adds-a-new-senate-defense-arm-20150522>with 
an important addition to Eric Lichtblau’searlier story 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/22/us/politics/american-crossroads-facing-challenges-to-its-political-power.html?ref=politics>on 
Crossroads.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72711&title=%E2%80%9CKarl%20Rove%E2%80%99s%20Crossroads%20Empire%20Adds%20a%20New%20Senate%20Defense%20Arm%3B%20A%20new%20secret-money%20nonprofit%20branch%20will%20focus%20on%20defending%20the%20GOP%20majority.%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

-- 
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/20150522/448b36c2/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/20150522/448b36c2/attachment.png>