[EL] ELB News and Commentary 5/27/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Tue May 26 08:17:24 PDT 2015
“Koch Brothers Plan to Fund ‘Several’ GOP 2016 Presidential
Hopefuls” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72765>
Posted onMay 26, 2015 8:15 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72765>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bloomberg
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-24/koch-brothers-plan-to-fund-several-gop-2016-presidential-hopefuls>:
The good news for Republican presidential candidates seeking to get
a slice of Koch brothers cash is that the siblings, two of the
world’s richest individuals, seem to be in a sharing mood.
In a Saturday interview on theLarry Kudlow
Show,<http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/koch-brothers-several-republican/2015/05/23/id/646462/> a
nationally syndicated radio broadcast, David Koch let it slip that
the roughly $900 million
<https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-01-26/kochs-to-play-big-in-2016-1-billion-big>that
he and his brother, Charles, plan to lavish on the 2016 presidential
race could find its way into the hands of more than one GOP contender.
“We are thinking of supporting several Republicans,” David Koch
said, adding, “If we’re happy with the policies that these
individuals are supporting, we’ll finance their campaigns.”
Let that last line sink in for a moment: “We’ll finance their
campaigns.” Not “we’ll support their campaigns.” Only a billionaire
patrician could talk like that.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72765&title=%E2%80%9CKoch%20Brothers%20Plan%20to%20Fund%20%E2%80%98Several%E2%80%99%20GOP%202016%20Presidential%20Hopefuls%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,Plutocrats United
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>
“Mary Landrieu takes job at Washington lobbying firm”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72763>
Posted onMay 26, 2015 8:10 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72763>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
She’ll have to pretend
<http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/05/mary_landrieu_takes_job_at_dc.html>she’s
giving “strategic advice” until the 2-year lobbying waiting period for
Senators expires.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72763&title=%E2%80%9CMary%20Landrieu%20takes%20job%20at%20Washington%20lobbying%20firm%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inlegislation and legislatures
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>,lobbying
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
“Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s
State Department” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72761>
Posted onMay 26, 2015 8:09 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72761>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
IBT reports.
<http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72761&title=%E2%80%9CClinton%20Foundation%20Donors%20Got%20Weapons%20Deals%20From%20Hillary%20Clinton%E2%80%99s%20State%20Department%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inconflict of interest laws <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>
“Four Words That Imperil Health Care Law Were All a Mistake, Writers
Now Say” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72759>
Posted onMay 26, 2015 8:00 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72759>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Must-read deep dive
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/us/politics/contested-words-in-affordable-care-act-may-have-been-left-by-mistake.html?_r=1>into
legislative drafting of challenged ACA provision by Robert Pear NYT.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72759&title=%E2%80%9CFour%20Words%20That%20Imperil%20Health%20Care%20Law%20Were%20All%20a%20Mistake%2C%20Writers%20Now%20Say%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted instatutory interpretation
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=21>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Schock’s ties to donors raise questions about travel, condo,
‘swaps'” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72757>
Posted onMay 26, 2015 7:56 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72757>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Chicago Tribune.
<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-aaron-schock-donors-met-20150524-story.html#page=1>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72757&title=%E2%80%9CSchock%E2%80%99s%20ties%20to%20donors%20raise%20questions%20about%20travel%2C%20condo%2C%20%E2%80%98swaps%27%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,chicanery
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
“California to Examine Voting Rights of People with Intellectual
Disabilities” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72755>
Posted onMay 26, 2015 7:55 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72755>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
A Chapinblog.
<http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/electionacademy/2015/05/california_to_examine_voting_r.php>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72755&title=%E2%80%9CCalifornia%20to%20Examine%20Voting%20Rights%20of%20People%20with%20Intellectual%20Disabilities%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted invoters with disabilities
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=71>,voting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
“More Conflict at the FEC: The Question of Partisanship and the
Problem of Finger-Pointing” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72753>
Posted onMay 26, 2015 7:50 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72753>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bauer
<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2015/05/conflict-fec-question-partisanship-problem-finger-pointing/>:
A dispute over whether the FEC is tilting its investigations against
conservatives or Republicans is mostly a waste of energy.
Commissioner Goodwingot this started
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72688>at a Commission hearing andhas
been rebuked <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72709>by Commissioner
Ravel. The Republicans profess to be outraged; the Democrats
announce that this outrage has rendered them speechless. Once again
there is here, in the midst of this clamor, an important question–
the uses and misuses of the agency’s enforcement process—that is
being misdirected into another round of finger-pointing about bad
faith and improper motive.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72753&title=%E2%80%9CMore%20Conflict%20at%20the%20FEC%3A%20The%20Question%20of%20Partisanship%20and%20the%20Problem%20of%20Finger-Pointing%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,federal
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>
“Meet the ‘dark money’ phantom; Ohio lawyer at the nexus of
nonprofit network is conservatives’ secret weapon”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72751>
Posted onMay 26, 2015 7:49 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72751>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
CPI<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/05/26/17374/meet-dark-money-phantom>on
David Langdon.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72751&title=%E2%80%9CMeet%20the%20%E2%80%98dark%20money%E2%80%99%20phantom%3B%20Ohio%20lawyer%20at%20the%20nexus%20of%20nonprofit%20network%20is%20conservatives%E2%80%99%20secret%20weapon%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,election
law biz <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>
“Voter Turnout in U.S. Mayoral Elections Is Pathetic, But It Wasn’t
Always This Way” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72749>
Posted onMay 26, 2015 7:47 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72749>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Worth readingDaniel Denvir for Citylab.
<http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/05/mayoral-election-voting-turnout/393737/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72749&title=%E2%80%9CVoter%20Turnout%20in%20U.S.%20Mayoral%20Elections%20Is%20Pathetic%2C%20But%20It%20Wasn%E2%80%99t%20Always%20This%20Way%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted invoting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
“Supreme Court ‘Litmus Test’ Emerges in White House Race”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72747>
Posted onMay 26, 2015 7:43 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72747>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Tony Mauro
<http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202727263323/Supreme-Court-Litmus-Test-Emerges-in-White-House-Race>:
Unusually explicit comments this month by Democratic presidential
candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have resurrected the
debate over the propriety of establishing “litmus tests” for
potential U.S. Supreme Court nominees.
First Sanders and then Clinton said that if elected president, they
would nominate to the high court individuals who are committed to
overturning/Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission/,the
2010 decision
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf>that struck
down limits on independent expenditures in election campaigns.
OnFace the Nation May 10
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-transcripts-may-10-2015-huckabee-sanders-gingrich/>,
Sanders said any of his would-be nominees to the Supreme Court “will
say that we are going to overturn this disastrous Supreme Court
decision on/Citizens United/because that decision is undermining
American democracy. I do not believe that billionaires should be
able to buy politicians.”
Eight days later, Clintontold supporters in Iowa
<http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-returns-iowa-help-rally-caucus-volunteers-152733604--election.html>,
“I will do everything I can do to appoint Supreme Court justices who
will protect the right to vote and not the right of billionaires to
buy elections.” Her reference to the right to vote suggests she
would look for candidates who would overturn not only/Citizens
United/but alsothe 2013 ruling
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf>in/Shelby
County v. Holder/that found a key section of the Voting Rights Act
unconstitutional.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72747&title=%E2%80%9CSupreme%20Court%20%E2%80%98Litmus%20Test%E2%80%99%20Emerges%20in%20White%20House%20Race%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Breaking News: #SCOTUS to Hear One Person, One Vote Case
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72739>
Posted onMay 26, 2015 6:38 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72739>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
In a surprise move, the Supreme Courtagreed to hear an appeal
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/052615zor_2co3.pdf>from
a three judge court inEvenwel v. Abbott
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/evenwel-v-abbott/>, a
one-person, one vote case involving the counting of non-citizens in the
creation of electoral districts. Ed Blum, the force behind the Fisher
anti-affirmative action case and the Shelby County case striking down a
key portion of the Voting Rights Act is also behind this case. The
question involves whether Texas can draw districts using total
population rather than total voters, an issue especially important given
non-citizen Latinos living in parts of Texas. The claim is that
representatives from these areas with non-citizens get too much moving
power. A ruling in favor of the challengers would be a boost for areas
with fewer numbers of non-citizens living there.The Court w
The question presented in thejurisdictional statement
<http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/14-940-js-pet.pdf>is:
In Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), this Court held that the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes a
“one-person, one-vote” principle. This principle requires that,
“when members of an elected body are chosen from separate districts,
each district must be established on a basis that will insure, as
far as is practicable, that equal numbers of voters can vote for
proportionally equal numbers of offi cials.” Hadley v. Junior Coll.
Dist. of Metro. Kansas City, Mo., 397 U.S. 50, 56 (1970). In 2013,
the Texas Legislature enacted a State Senate map creating districts
that, while roughly equal in terms of total population, grossly
malapportioned voters. Appellants, who live in Senate districts
significantly overpopulated with voters, brought a one-person,
onevote challenge, which the three-judge district court below
dismissed for failure to state a claim. The district court held that
Appellants’ constitutional challenge is a judicially unreviewable
political question. The question presented is whether the
“one-person, one-vote” principle of the Fourteenth Amendment creates
a judicially enforceable right ensuring that the districting process
does not deny voters an equal vote.
Here was Texas’s response in itsmotion to dismiss or affirm
<http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/14-940-bio.pdf>:
The district court correctly dismissed plaintiffs’ lawsuit for
failure to state a claim. This appeal should be dismissed for lack
of an unsettled substantial federal question, or the judgment should
be summarily affirmed. Plaintiffs cite no case in which a court has
accepted their claim that the Constitution compels States to
apportion their legislative districts based on voter population, as
opposed to or in addition to total population. And multiple
precedents from this Court confirm that total population is a
permissible apportionment base under the Equal Protection Clause.
Nothing in this case warrants a different result.
The Court will hear the case next term, meaning that there are likely to
be questions about the propriety of Texas’s redistricting for nearly the
entire 10 years of its redistricting plan. (A Voting Rights Act section
2 claim remains pending before a separate three-judge-court in San Antonio).
Like Texas, I had considered the issue fairly settled by the Supreme
Court that states have the power to decide whether to use total
population or another measure for drawing district lines. That’s not to
say that the one person, one vote concept was clear. Scholars including
Sandy Levinson and Joey Fishkin had raised interesting conceptual
questions about it.
Of course, if we count only voters for districting, that leaves out not
just non-citizens, but also children and felons and those mentally
incompetent who have had their voting rights taken away.
It is interesting to have a conservative arguing against Texas that
states should have /less power/to decide how to draw districts.
Here is the press release from Blum’s group:
Today, the US Supreme Court announced it will take up for argument
next term/Evenwel v. Abbott/, a challenge to the constitutionality
of the Texas Senate redistricting plan that was enacted into law in
2013.
Two Texas voters, Sue Evenwel and Ed Pfenninger, brought this
lawsuit asserting that their senate districts were malapportioned
because there are a significantly higher number of eligible voters
in their districts than in many other districts. This imbalance
resulted in a violation of the “one-person, one-vote” constitutional
tenet.
In each of the 31 senate districts in Texas there are about 811,000
people, but there are wild disparities in the number of people per
district who actually have the legal right to cast a ballot.
Specifically, in Sue Evenwel’s mostly rural district, about 584,000
citizens are eligible to vote. In a neighboring urban district, only
372,000 citizens are eligible. As a result, voters in the urban
district have more sway than in the rural district; their individual
electoral preferences carry more weight.
Sue Evenwel and Ed Pfenninger jointly said, “We are grateful that
the justices on the Supreme Court have agreed to hear our case. It
is to be hoped that the outcome of our lawsuit will compel Texas to
equalize the number of eligible voters in each district.”
The Project on Fair Representation, a legal defense foundation based
in Austin, Texas, has provided counsel to the plaintiffs. Attorneys
for POFR are William Consovoy, Tom McCarthy, and Michael Connolly of
Consovoy McCarthy PLLC in Arlington, Virginia.
Edward Blum, president of POFR said, “This case presents the Court
with the opportunity to restore the important principle of
one-person, one-vote to the citizens of Texas and elsewhere.”
The Project on Fair Representation has provided counsel in a number
of landmark Supreme Court cases including/Northwest
Austin//Municipal Utility Dist. No. One v. Holder/,/Abigail Fisher
v. Univ. of Texas/and/Shelby//County, Ala. v. Holder/.
[This post has been updated.]
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72739&title=Breaking%20News%3A%20%23SCOTUS%20to%20Hear%20One%20Person%2C%20One%20Vote%20Case&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Time for Northern California to Make Its Own State?
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72737>
Posted onMay 25, 2015 1:56 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72737>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The State of Jefferson
movement<http://www.theunion.com/news/16315295-113/state-of-jefferson-keep-it-california-make-their>meets
in Nevada County.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72737&title=Time%20for%20Northern%20California%20to%20Make%20Its%20Own%20State%3F&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Money Talks: Legal changes have opened the door to new kinds of
political spending. What does the money buy?”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72735>
Posted onMay 25, 2015 1:54 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72735>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Jesse Romero has writtenthis article
<http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/econ_focus/2014/q4/feature1.cfm>for
Econ Focus of the Richmond Fed.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72735&title=%E2%80%9CMoney%20Talks%3A%20Legal%20changes%20have%20opened%20the%20door%20to%20new%20kinds%20of%20political%20spending.%20What%20does%20the%20money%20buy%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Media Executives are Salivating over Big Money Flooding the 2016
Election Cycle” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72732>
Posted onMay 22, 2015 4:24 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72732>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Lee Fang.
<https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/22/one-group-americans-drool-wall-wall-presidential-campaign-ads-next-year-media-companies/?utm_content=buffer166de&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72732&title=%E2%80%9CMedia%20Executives%20are%20Salivating%20over%20Big%20Money%20Flooding%20the%202016%20Election%20Cycle%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“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>
--
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/20150526/eeee3509/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/20150526/eeee3509/attachment.png>
View list directory