[EL] ELB News and Commentary 5/27/15

Rick Hasen rhasen at law.uci.edu
Wed May 27 08:14:38 PDT 2015


    Why the Court Should Leave the Choice of One Person One Vote Rules
    to the States <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72842>

Posted onMay 27, 2015 8:12 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72842>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Inmy Slate 
piece<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/evenwel_v_abbott_supreme_court_case_state_districts_count_voters_or_total.html>on 
the Supreme Court’s decision to hear Evenwel, which I wanted to title 
“Unsettling Precedents,” I argue that whether to use total population or 
total voters (or perhaps some other denominator) in redistricting to 
comply with one person, one vote rules is properly left to the states. 
(I use the piece to argue for the irony of conservatives pushing states 
to adopt only a single measure of one person, one vote, which not only 
goes against earlier precedent but also is not tied to the actual text 
of the Constitution.)

I thought it worth pointing out that I’ve developed at length an 
argument for when the Supreme Court needs to intervene in election cases 
(primarily to protect a “core” of political equality rights) and when 
the Court needs to intervene (when a question does not involve the core, 
but involves issues which are appropriately addressed by states within a 
range of choices). Think of it as a kind of political equality 
federalism.  I make the argument in my 2003 book,The Supreme Court and 
Election Law: Judging Equality from Baker v. Carr to Bush v. Gore 
<http://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Court-Election-Law-Equality/dp/0814736912/ref=la_B0089NJCR2_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1432739533&sr=1-8>, 
so this is no new idea for me. But/Evenwel/ and potential variations on 
the one person, one vote rule are a perfect example of my argument.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72842&title=Why%20the%20Court%20Should%20Leave%20the%20Choice%20of%20One%20Person%20One%20Vote%20Rules%20to%20the%20States&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    New FEC Petition for Rulemaking to Stop “Contribution Laundering”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72840>

Posted onMay 27, 2015 8:06 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72840>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

See here. <https://www.makeyourlaws.org/fec/laundering>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72840&title=New%20FEC%20Petition%20for%20Rulemaking%20to%20Stop%20%E2%80%9CContribution%20Laundering%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,federal 
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>


    “Supreme Court to consider redefining ‘one-person, one-vote’
    principle” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72838>

Posted onMay 27, 2015 8:03 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72838>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Richard Wolf reports 
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/26/supreme-court-voting-rights/27800607/>for 
USA Today.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72838&title=%E2%80%9CSupreme%20Court%20to%20consider%20redefining%20%E2%80%98one-person%2C%20one-vote%E2%80%99%20principle%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “A Major Test of Equal Representation for All”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72836>

Posted onMay 27, 2015 7:55 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72836>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

David Gans 
<http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/05/a-major-test-of-equal-representation.html>:

    The “voters only”  claim in/Evenwel/should be rejected. How could it
    possibly be unconstitutional for state and local governments to
    apportion representatives based on “the theory of the
    Constitution”?  When/Evenwel/is heard next Term, the Justices should
    recognize that states have the authority to ensure equal
    representation for all persons by drawing state legislative lines on
    the basis of total population.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72836&title=%E2%80%9CA%20Major%20Test%20of%20Equal%20Representation%20for%20All%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “Of People, Trees, Acres, Dollars, and Voters”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72834>

Posted onMay 27, 2015 7:54 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72834>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Joey Fishkin 
<http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/05/of-people-trees-acres-dollars-and-voters.html>:

    And so the question before the Court now is this: does a poor,
    urban, Latino kid, not yet 18, deserve to be able to say “this
    representative represents me.  Not acres, trees, dollars, active
    voters, and so on, but me—I am their constituent.”  Or to put it
    differently: the question is whether the cities should enjoy the
    same per capita representation as their suburban and rural, whiter,
    older counterparts.  And what an odd coincidence: that was actually
    the original question in/Reynolds v. Sims/itself.  But like so much
    in contemporary constitutional litigation in the era of John Roberts
    and Ed Blum, the Evenwel case comes at the law in a kind of
    funhouse-mirror reverse, aiming to destroy in Equal Protection’s
    name a substantial chunk of what that clause has built.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72834&title=%E2%80%9COf%20People%2C%20Trees%2C%20Acres%2C%20Dollars%2C%20and%20Voters%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “5 Points On How ‘One Person, One Vote’ Is Suddenly In Jeopardy”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72832>

Posted onMay 27, 2015 7:51 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72832>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Tierney Sneed 
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/fivepoints/texas-supreme-court-districting>for 
TPM.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72832&title=%E2%80%9C5%20Points%20On%20How%20%E2%80%98One%20Person%2C%20One%20Vote%E2%80%99%20Is%20Suddenly%20In%20Jeopardy%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    Three Former SEC Commissioners Urge SEC to Adopt Political
    Disclosure Rule for Companies <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72829>

Posted onMay 27, 2015 7:50 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72829>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Letter 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/SEC-Letter-on-Political-Activities.pdf>from Bevis 
Longstreth. William Donaldson. and Arthur Levitt .

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72829&title=Three%20Former%20SEC%20Commissioners%20Urge%20SEC%20to%20Adopt%20Political%20Disclosure%20Rule%20for%20Companies&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


    Divided 4th Circuit Panel Revives Redistricting Suit in Wake County,
    NC School Board Elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72826>

Posted onMay 27, 2015 7:47 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72826>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Very interesting opinion and dissent 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Wright-v-McCrory-4th-Cir.pdf>, 
relying on a Larios-type claim for rejecting deviations from one person, 
one vote principles.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72826&title=Divided%204th%20Circuit%20Panel%20Revives%20Redistricting%20Suit%20in%20Wake%20County%2C%20NC%20School%20Board%20Elections&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>


    Super PACs Pro and Con <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72824>

Posted onMay 27, 2015 7:39 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72824>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

USA Today editorial 
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/05/25/campaign-finance-super-pacs-federal-election-commission-editorials-debates/27928689/>: 2016 
presidential campaigns chase money, with no cop on the beat: Our view

Brad Smith response 
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/05/25/super-pacs-center-for-competitive-politics-editorials-debates/27928735/>: 
Super PACs are Not the Problem

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72824&title=Super%20PACs%20Pro%20and%20Con&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


    “What Actually Happens During a Kentucky Recanvassing?”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72822>

Posted onMay 27, 2015 7:37 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72822>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Josh Douglas 
<http://www.uky.edu/electionlaw/analysis/what-actually-happens-during-kentucky-recanvassing>on 
the case.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72822&title=%E2%80%9CWhat%20Actually%20Happens%20During%20a%20Kentucky%20Recanvassing%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


    “Watchdog Groups Urge DOJ to Name Special Outside Counsel to
    Investigate Legality of Bush Super PAC Scheme”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72820>

Posted onMay 27, 2015 7:36 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72820>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Woof. 
<http://www.democracy21.org/uncategorized/watchdog-groups-urge-doj-to-name-special-outside-counsel-to-investigate-legality-of-bush-super-pac-scheme/>

More 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/27/campaign-finance-watchdogs-push-justice-dept-to-investigate-jeb-bushs-pac/?postshare=9131432737106644>from 
WaPo.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72820&title=%E2%80%9CWatchdog%20Groups%20Urge%20DOJ%20to%20Name%20Special%20Outside%20Counsel%20to%20Investigate%20Legality%20of%20Bush%20Super%20PAC%20Scheme%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Department of Justice 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>


    “Federal case against Mission postmen sent to prosecutors”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72818>

Posted onMay 27, 2015 7:35 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72818>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

News 
<http://www.themonitor.com/news/local/federal-case-against-mission-postmen-sent-to-prosecutors/article_ce331698-0194-11e5-bd66-83f666fb0cf6.html>from 
Texas:

    The case of two Mission postal workers facing an investigation into
    whether they sold mail-in ballots during the last La Joya school
    district board election was recently turned over to federal
    prosecutors for review.

    The case focuses on whether the postmen conspired to sell lists of
    voters receiving mail-in ballots to candidates running in the
    November elections, including Hidalgo County Sheriff Eddie Guerra,
    who denies involvement with the men.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72818&title=%E2%80%9CFederal%20case%20against%20Mission%20postmen%20sent%20to%20prosecutors%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inabsentee ballots <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>,chicanery 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


    “Texas keeping thousands from registering, voting group alleges”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72816>

Posted onMay 27, 2015 7:33 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72816>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

MSNBC 
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/texas-keeping-thousands-registering-voting-group-alleges>:

    housands of Texans are being disenfranchised thanks to chronic
    failures in the state’s voter registration system, a Democratic
    group alleges based on government records and extensive additional
    evidence.

    The charges raise serious questions about Texas’s commitment to
    making the ballot box accessible to new voters, and about its
    compliance with federal voting law.

    In aletter
    <http://b.3cdn.net/battletx/3819d68599ec44bfe1_59m6b0x1j.pdf>sent
    Wednesday to Texas Secretary of State Carlos Cascos, lawyers for
    Battleground Texas, which works to register voters in the state,
    wrote that the state government’s “voter registration failures are
    widespread and systematically undermining the right to vote in Texas.”

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72816&title=%E2%80%9CTexas%20keeping%20thousands%20from%20registering%2C%20voting%20group%20alleges%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,NVRA (motor voter) 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>,The Voting Wars 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


    Quote of the Day: Evenwel Edition <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72814>

Posted onMay 26, 2015 8:33 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72814>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

    “We don’t have a national list of citizens,” he said. The data cited
    in the Texas case come from a census survey of about 2% of
    households that counts citizens.

    “If you are only counting 2% of the households, there will be wild
    inaccuracies. It would be crazy to force states to draw districts
    with this data,” he said.

Nate Persily, quoted by theLAT. 
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-supreme-court-voting-districts-20150526-story.html#page=2>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72814&title=Quote%20of%20the%20Day%3A%20Evenwel%20Edition&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “Supreme Court could deal California ‘a one-two punch’ on
    redistricting” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72812>

Posted onMay 26, 2015 8:04 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72812>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The LA Times reports. 
<http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-california-redistricting-20150527-story.html>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72812&title=%E2%80%9CSupreme%20Court%20could%20deal%20California%20%E2%80%98a%20one-two%20punch%E2%80%99%20on%20redistricting%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “Big GOP Donors Giving to New Accounts Congress Created to Help
    Political Parties” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72810>

Posted onMay 26, 2015 5:25 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72810>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bloomberg BNA 
<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=69448965&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0g7e2c1e5&split=0>:

    Big Republican donors are taking advantage of new, high-dollar
    limits on political party contributions established by Congress last
    year, with David Koch, Sheldon Adelson and Henry Kravis counted
    among the latest donors providing a total of more than $3.4 million
    in large contributions collected by GOP committees last month,
    according to recently filed Federal Election Commission reports….

    *GOP Outraising Dems Over 10 to 1*
    The big Republican contributions were included in monthly reports
    disclosing financial activities in April, which were filed May 20
    with the FEC and analyzed on the Political Money Line website.
    The April FEC reports indicated that all three national Republican
    committees—the NRSC, NRCC and RNC—received a total of more than $3.4
    million in their new accounts just in April.
    National Democratic committees, meanwhile, have been lagging far
    behind in fund-raising in the new high-dollar accounts. The
    Democratic total for April of $261,000 was less than a tenth of
    total haul for new Republican accounts, even though some top leaders
    of both major parties agreed to the controversial provision passed
    by Congress late last year to increase party contributions.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72810&title=%E2%80%9CBig%20GOP%20Donors%20Giving%20to%20New%20Accounts%20Congress%20Created%20to%20Help%20Political%20Parties%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


    “U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether ‘one person, one vote’
    includes non-citizens” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72808>

Posted onMay 26, 2015 4:59 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72808>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

David Savage report 
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-supreme-court-voting-districts-20150526-story.html>s 
for the LA Times.

See also 
<http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-scotus-congressional-delegation-20150526-story.html>Melanie 
Mason’s, “Could U.S. Supreme Court Shrink California’s Congressional Clout?”

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72808&title=%E2%80%9CU.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20to%20decide%20whether%20%E2%80%98one%20person%2C%20one%20vote%E2%80%99%20includes%20non-citizens%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “Supreme Court to hear challenge to Texas redistricting plan”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72806>

Posted onMay 26, 2015 4:56 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72806>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bob Barnes reports 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-to-hear-texas-redistricting-case/2015/05/26/ab0c9c80-03b4-11e5-8bda-c7b4e9a8f7ac_story.html>for 
WaPo.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72806&title=%E2%80%9CSupreme%20Court%20to%20hear%20challenge%20to%20Texas%20redistricting%20plan%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “Supreme Court to Consider How to Calculate Size of Voting
    Districts” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72804>

Posted onMay 26, 2015 4:54 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72804>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Jess Bravin reports 
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-to-consider-how-to-calculate-size-of-voting-districts-1432651924>for 
the WSJ.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72804&title=%E2%80%9CSupreme%20Court%20to%20Consider%20How%20to%20Calculate%20Size%20of%20Voting%20Districts%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    Prediction: The Most Important Brief in the Evenwel Case
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72802>

Posted onMay 26, 2015 4:49 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72802>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

…will likely be an amicus brief by political scientists (probably 
supporting neither party) explaining how difficult and contentious it 
would be to put in practice a voters only measure of population for 
redistricting purposes.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72802&title=Prediction%3A%20The%20Most%20Important%20Brief%20in%20the%20Evenwel%20Case&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “Supreme Court to Weigh Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote’”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72800>

Posted onMay 26, 2015 4:21 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72800>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Adam Liptak reports 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/us/supreme-court-to-weigh-meaning-of-one-person-one-vote.html>for 
the NYT:

    In the new case, the Supreme Court may decide that states can
    determine for themselves which standard to use. Even such a ruling
    could have a major impact, Professor Pildes said.

    “If the court leaves it to states to decide, we could see the
    politics of immigration come to affect the politics of redistricting
    even more,” he said. “State legislatures would be given a green
    light to locate more power or less power in areas that have large
    geographic concentrations of noncitizens. Those areas would have
    more power if the rule is equality of residents and less power if
    it’s equality of eligible voters.”

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72800&title=%E2%80%9CSupreme%20Court%20to%20Weigh%20Meaning%20of%20%E2%80%98One%20Person%20One%20Vote%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “Only Voters Count? Conservatives ask the Supreme Court to restrict
    states’ rights and overturn precedent.”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72797>

Posted onMay 26, 2015 3:31 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72797>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

I have writtenthis new piece 
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/evenwel_v_abbott_supreme_court_case_state_districts_count_voters_or_total.html>for 
/Slate/.  It begins:

    For the second time in a year, the Supreme Court has agreed to wade
    into an election case at the urging of conservatives. In both cases
    it has done so despite the issue appearing to be settled by
    long-standing precedent. Ina case expected to be decided
    <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/arizona-state-legislature-v-arizona-independent-redistricting-commission/?wpmp_switcher=desktop>next
    month,/Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent
    Redistricting Commission/, conservatives asked the court to bar
    states from usingindependent redistricting commissions
    <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2015/03/arizona_state_legislature_and_redistricting_commission_arguments_supreme.html>to
    draw congressional lines. In a case the courtagreed to hear
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72739>Tuesday,/Evenwel v. Abbott/
    <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/evenwel-v-abbott/>/,/conservatives
    asked the court to require states to draw their legislative district
    lines in a particular way: Rather than considering the total
    population in each district, conservatives argue, the lines should
    instead divide districts according to the number of people
    registered or eligible to vote. Most states use total population for
    drawing districts, which includes noncitizens, children, felons, and
    others ineligible to vote.

    In both Supreme Court cases, there is great irony in the fact that
    they are being brought by conservatives, who usually claim to
    respect precedents and states’ rights. The challengers are not only
    asking the court to revisit issues that seemed to be settled by
    decades-old precedent. If successful, these cases will undermine
    federalism bylimiting states’ rights
    <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2015/03/arizona_state_legislature_and_redistricting_commission_arguments_supreme.html>to
    design their own political systems.

    A ruling favorable to conservatives in the/Evenwel/case, especially
    if extended to congressional redistricting, could shift more power
    to Republicans, who are more likely to live in areas with high
    concentrations of voters.

It concludes:

    The conservatives behind/Evenwel/don’t seem bothered much by the
    intrusion on states’ rights that a decision in their favor would
    engender. That’s because they are motivated more by the fact that
    noncitizens are getting representation, and in their belief that
    this is “diluting” the voting power of citizens. They arethe same
    people <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72739>who backed attacks on
    affirmative action at the Supreme Court in the/Fisher v. University
    of Texas at Austin/__case
    <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/fisher-v-university-of-texas-at-austin/>and
    successfully got the Supreme Court to strike down a key portion of
    the Voting Rights Act in the/Shelby County v. Holder/
    <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/570/12-96/>case.

    It is an agenda not about states’ rights but about getting the
    Supreme Court to force states to empower conservatives and force
    onto all of us the theories of representation and power they envision.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72797&title=%E2%80%9COnly%20Voters%20Count%3F%20Conservatives%20ask%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20to%20restrict%20states%E2%80%99%20rights%20and%20overturn%20precedent.%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,residency 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=38>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    Commissioner Goodman Responds to Commissioner Ravel on Partisan Bias
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72794>

Posted onMay 26, 2015 3:18 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72794>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Following up onCommissioner Ravel’s comments 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72709> about statements made by 
Commissioner Goodman <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72688>, Commissioner 
Goodman sends along the following further response:

    *COMMISSIONER GOODMAN:*

    At last Thursday’s FEC meeting, a Commissioner proposed that the FEC
    plow through its docket of cases within three months as a service to
    the complainants.  This proposal cannot be considered blind to the
    fact that the FEC’s complainant class has filed three complaints
    against a Republican or conservative respondent for every one
    involving a Democratic or liberal respondent.  Those who work inside
    the FEC have seen how enforcement dockets and meeting agendas can be
    manipulated to focus on particular respondents or to sequence
    matters in ways that influence their substantive consideration.  For
    example, matters can be sequenced to advance or avoid nuanced
    distinctions between cases involving similar facts and circumstances
    leading to disparate treatment of similarly situated respondents.
      Furthermore, some cases are more complicated than others.  For
    these reasons, I argued that any policy on enforcement procedure
    must be fundamentally fair.  The proposal at the meeting fell short
    on this count and suffered from other technical deficiencies I
    explained.

    As I stated at last Thursday’s meeting, I believe the Commission
    should expedite resolution of more cases for the benefit of the
    citizens who find themselves entangled with the FEC’s enforcement
    process.  Accordingly, I recommended that the Commission expedite
    consideration of all matters while affording Commissioners
    reasonable discretion to consider matters subject to the following
    timing factors:

    (1) deferring action in a case that may be the subject of parallel
    enforcement by another government agency;

    (2) deferring action in a case that might affect ongoing litigation;

    (3) timing action to avoid direct election intervention (similar to
    the policy of the U.S. Department of Justice);

    (4) considering several matters involving one respondent at one time
    rather than piecemeal; and

    (5) considering several matters involving different respondents but
    raising the same legal issues at one time rather than separately
    (risking disparate treatment).

    Other Commissioners may have other timing considerations, and I
    would be open to discussion about those.  Whatever policy guides the
    Commission’s timing, however, it must be fair and free from even the
    perception that it will discriminate against those affiliated with a
    specific political party or ideology.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72794&title=Commissioner%20Goodman%20Responds%20to%20Commissioner%20Ravel%20on%20Partisan%20Bias&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,federal 
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>

-- 
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
hhttp://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/20150527/a46dedd0/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/20150527/a46dedd0/attachment.png>


View list directory