[EL] ELB News and Commentary 11/5/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Thu Nov 5 08:09:06 PST 2015
"More than 1,000 voted during extended hours in Hamilton County,
Board of Elections says” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77328>
Posted onNovember 5, 2015 8:07 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77328>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WCPO reports.
<http://www.wcpo.com/news/political/elections-local/more-than-1000-voted-during-extended-hours-in-hamilton-county-board-of-elections-says>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77328&title=%26%238220%3BMore%20than%201%2C000%20voted%20during%20extended%20hours%20in%20Hamilton%20County%2C%20Board%20of%20Elections%20says%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“The History and Future of Election Law Symposium”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77326>
Posted onNovember 5, 2015 8:00 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77326>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
This looks to be a great event
<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/events/index.php?ID=24631> at Ohio State with
an all-star cast that I unfortunately have to miss:
Please join us on Friday, November 20, for the Ohio State Law Journal’s
2015 Symposium:/The History and Future of Election Law/.
The goal of the symposium is to look systematically at the past in an
effort to consider the possibilities of future developments in various
areas of election law. There will be four panels: (1)*The History and
Future of Redistricting and Gerrymanders*, (2)*The History and Future of
Campaign Finance*, (3)*The History and Future of Voting Rules*and
(4)*The History and Future of Election Law Generally*. Enjoy an
enlightening discussion with ouresteemed interdisciplinary panelists
<http://osu.us11.list-manage.com/track/click?u=50ff64c7facc5060fd2365670&id=8353dcf501&e=0840bbd850>as
they explore how our nation’s democratic procedures arrived at the point
where they are today and where they conceivably might be heading in the
future.
Panelists and Moderators include:
· Professor Stephen Ansolabehere,/Harvard University, Department
of Government/
· Professor Richard Briffault,/Columbia Law School/
· Professor Bruce Cain,/Stanford University, Department of
Political Science/
· Professor Kareem Crayton,/University of North Carolina School of Law/
· Professor Erik Engstrom/, University of California, Davis, Department
of Political Science/
· Professor Ned Foley/, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law/
· Professor Anthony Gaughan/, Drake University/
· Professor Steven Huefner/, Ohio State University Moritz
College of Law/
· Professor Pam Karlan,/Stanford University Law School/
· Professor Ellen Katz/, University of Michigan Law School/
· Professor Alex Keyssar/, Harvard John F. Kennedy School of
Government/
· Professor Nate Persily/, Stanford University Law School/
· Professor Rick Pildes,/New York University School of Law/
· Professor David Stebenne,/The Ohio State University/
· Professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos/, University of Chicago Law School/
· Professor Zephyr Teachout/, Fordham University School of Law/
· Professor Dan Tokaji/, Ohio State University Moritz College of
Law/
Check-in and breakfast will begin at 8:30 a.m. and the Symposium will
end with closing remarks at approximately 4:15 p.m.
/The symposium is generously sponsored by The Democracy Studies Program,
The Center for Interdisciplinary Law and Policy Studies, The American
Constitution Society, and the Public Interest Law Foundation (PILF)./
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77326&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20History%20and%20Future%20of%20Election%20Law%20Symposium%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Supreme Court appears conflicted on dismissal of gerrymandering
case” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77324>
Posted onNovember 5, 2015 7:58 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77324>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bob Barnes writes
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-hears-appeal-on-dismissal-of-gerrymandering-case/2015/11/04/f5c534b8-831a-11e5-8ba6-cec48b74b2a7_story.html>for
WaPo.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77324&title=%26%238220%3BSupreme%20Court%20appears%20conflicted%20on%20dismissal%20of%20gerrymandering%20case%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
More Thoughts on Oral Argument in Shapiro v. McManus
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77322>
Posted onNovember 5, 2015 7:53 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77322>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Howard Wasserman
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/11/argument-analysis-wow-thats-my-comment-a-passive-court-and-a-predictable-outcome-on-three-judge-courts/>:
“wyers for both sides in yesterday’s argument in/Shapiro v. McManus/
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/shapiro-v-mack/>encountered
an unusually subdued Court. In a case considering whether a single
district judge can dismiss, for failure to state a claim, an action
thatotherwise must be decided by a three-judge district court
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2284>, the Justices asked
fewer questions than in many arguments and allowed both attorneys to
speak for long stretches without interruption. Many of the questions
were less about challenging the attorney than about understanding the
three-judge district court process generally and as it applies in
reapportionment cases. But many questions, particularly from Justices
Antonin Scalia and Elena Kagan, indicated a likely victory for the
voters challenging Maryland’s legislative redistricting, allowing them
to have their claims heard by a three-judge court.”
Josh Douglas
<http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2015/11/top-ten-thoughts-on-visiting-the-us-supreme-court-today-to-hear-shapiro-v-mcmanus-and-one-bonus-pred.html>:
“And here is a bonus thought: although it is never a good idea to read
the tea leaves, I predict a reversal in/Shapiro/, quite likely 9-0.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77322&title=More%20Thoughts%20on%20Oral%20Argument%20in%20Shapiro%20v.%20McManus&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Plan B: An Ohio Pollworker’s Look At Tuesday’s Problems”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77320>
Posted onNovember 5, 2015 7:49 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77320>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
A ChapinBlog
<http://editions.lib.umn.edu/electionacademy/2015/11/05/plan-b-an-ohio-pollworkers-look-at-tuesdays-problems/>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77320&title=%26%238220%3BPlan%20B%3A%20An%20Ohio%20Pollworker%E2%80%99s%20Look%20At%20Tuesday%E2%80%99s%20Problems%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“Democracy 21 and Campaign Legal Center Call for Justice Department
Investigation of Group Supporting Rubio Campaign and Improperly
Claiming 501(c)(4) Status” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77318>
Posted onNovember 5, 2015 7:46 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77318>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
See here.
<http://www.democracy21.org/money-in-politics/letters-to-the-doj/democracy-21-and-campaign-legal-center-call-for-justice-department-investigation-of-group-supporting-rubio-campaign-and-improperly-claiming-501c4-status/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77318&title=%26%238220%3BDemocracy%2021%20and%20Campaign%20Legal%20Center%20Call%20for%20Justice%20Department%20Investigation%20of%20Group%20Supporting%20Rubio%20Campaign%20and%20Improperly%20Claiming%20501%28c%29%284%29%20Status%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,tax law
and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
“122 legislators sought re-election Tuesday; they all won”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77316>
Posted onNovember 5, 2015 7:45 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77316>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
News from Va.
<http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/article_fcaec32d-9cea-525f-a04e-65109350396a.html>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77316&title=%26%238220%3B122%20legislators%20sought%20re-election%20Tuesday%3B%20they%20all%20won%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Senate would restore much of reporting on campaign donors’
employers” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77314>
Posted onNovember 5, 2015 7:45 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77314>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/senate-would-restore-much-of-reporting-on-campaign-donors-employers-b99610252z1-340771941.html>
Republicans in the state Senate would restore much of the reporting
of campaign donors’ employers, under changes they’re planning to a
broad campaign finance bill coming before them on Friday.
A version of the bill passed by the Assembly would eliminate all
reporting on which businesses political contributors work for, but
GOP senators want to leave much of that disclosure in place.
In a session planned for the end of the week, Senate Republicans
also want to revise a bill that would split up the state’s ethics
and elections agency to retain a role for retired judges on one of
the two new boards that would replace the existing Government
Accountability Board.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77314&title=%26%238220%3BSenate%20would%20restore%20much%20of%20reporting%20on%20campaign%20donors%26%238217%3B%20employers%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,election
administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
David Cole Reviews Neuborne on the First Amendment
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77312>
Posted onNovember 5, 2015 7:42 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77312>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here at the NYRB.
<http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/nov/05/free-speech-big-money-bad-elections/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77312&title=David%20Cole%20Reviews%20Neuborne%20on%20the%20First%20Amendment&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
George Will Lobbies #SCOTUS to Take CCP v. Harris Disclosure Case
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77310>
Posted onNovember 5, 2015 7:41 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77310>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here at WaPo.
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-supreme-courts-opportunity-to-tackle-sinister-trends/2015/11/04/a6d16350-8247-11e5-9afb-0c971f713d0c_story.html>
The case ison the
list<http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/15-152.htm>for
tomorrow’s Supreme Court conference.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77310&title=George%20Will%20Lobbies%20%23SCOTUS%20to%20Take%20CCP%20v.%20Harris%20Disclosure%20Case&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Professor Lessig’s Suspension of his Candidacy and the Reform
Agenda” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77308>
Posted onNovember 5, 2015 7:39 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77308>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bauer blogs.
<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2015/11/suspension-lessig-candidacy-reform-agenda/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77308&title=%26%238220%3BProfessor%20Lessig%E2%80%99s%20Suspension%20of%20his%20Candidacy%20and%20the%20Reform%20Agenda%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
Shaun McCutcheon Wants to Be a Donald Trump Delegate
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77306>
Posted onNovember 5, 2015 7:38 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77306>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
A millionaire loves billionaire story
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-11-05/look-who-wants-to-be-a-donald-trump-delegate?cmpid=BBD110515_POL>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77306&title=Shaun%20McCutcheon%20Wants%20to%20Be%20a%20Donald%20Trump%20Delegate&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“The Donald On ‘SNL’: Equal Time Isn’t Needed The FCC rule was meant
to foster debate, but today is more likely to chill it.”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77301>
Posted onNovember 4, 2015 5:20 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77301>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Babette Boliek and Derek
Mulleroped<http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-donald-on-snl-equal-time-isnt-needed-1446682481>in
the WSJ:
Holding a small number of broadcast stations and cable and satellite
operators to a century-old standard makes little sense. Given the
few situations that now trigger the equal-time doctrine, the
explosion in available media outlets, and the government’s strained
interpretations of the rule, it is hard to imagine how the doctrine
yields more speech than it chills.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77301&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20Donald%20On%20%E2%80%98SNL%E2%80%99%3A%20Equal%20Time%20Isn%E2%80%99t%20Needed%20The%20FCC%20rule%20was%20meant%20to%20foster%20debate%2C%20but%20today%20is%20more%20likely%20to%20chill%20it.%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Trump courted mega-donors he now scorns; The candidate quietly
wooed Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer and the Koch brothers”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77296>
Posted onNovember 4, 2015 4:42 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77296>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politico reports.
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/donald-trump-sheldon-adelson-paul-singer-koch-brothers-215540>
NYT
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/04/donald-trump-is-said-to-have-reached-out-to-the-megadonor-sheldon-adelson/>:
During the conversation, the person briefed on the discussion said,
Mr. Adelson told Mr. Trump that his most important issue when
considering a candidate is the safety of Israel. Mr. Trump then
emphasized his personal and family ties to the Jewish community in
New York.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77296&title=%26%238220%3BTrump%20courted%20mega-donors%20he%20now%20scorns%3B%20The%20candidate%20quietly%20wooed%20Sheldon%20Adelson%2C%20Paul%20Singer%20and%20the%20Koch%20brothers%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Election officials deliver ballots to hospital patients”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77294>
Posted onNovember 4, 2015 4:40 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77294>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The /Columbus Dispatch /reports.
<http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/11/04/delivering-the-vote.html>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77294&title=%26%238220%3BElection%20officials%20deliver%20ballots%20to%20hospital%20patients%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“Republican leader says he has votes for elections board bill”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77292>
Posted onNovember 4, 2015 1:08 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77292>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP
<http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268748/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=OmNBg2DH>with
the latest from Wisconsin.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77292&title=%26%238220%3BRepublican%20leader%20says%20he%20has%20votes%20for%20elections%20board%20bill%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,election
administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“How ‘Blue Zone’ GOP Could Veto a Conservative Nominee”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77290>
Posted onNovember 4, 2015 12:43 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77290>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Dave Wasserman <http://cookpolitical.com/story/8986>:
In a few months, after Iowa and New Hampshire begin to winnow the
field, the GOP nomination race could boil down to an epic final
between a candidate with a more pragmatic image, such as Marco
Rubio, Carly Fiorina or Jeb Bush, and a more conservative one, such
as Ted Cruz, Ben Carson or Donald Trump.1
If that happens, the moderate finalist — like Mitt Romney and John
McCain before him or her — will have a hidden structural advantage:
the party’s delegate math and geography.
There are plenty of reasons to be cautious of national polls that
show Trump and Carson leading. They may fail to screen out casual
voters, for instance, and leaders at this point in past years have
eventually tanked. But perhaps the biggest reason to ditch stock in
these polls is that they’re simulating a national vote that will
never take place.
In reality, the GOP nominating contest will be decided by an
intricate, state-by-state slog for the 2,472 delegates at stake
between February and June. And thanks to the Republican National
Committee’s allocation rules, the votes of “Blue Zone” Republicans —
the more moderate GOP primary voters who live in Democratic-leaning
states and congressional districts — could weigh more than those of
more conservative voters who live in deeply red zones. Put another
way: The Republican voters who will have little to no sway in the
general election could have some of the most sway in the primary.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77290&title=%26%238220%3BHow%20%26%238216%3BBlue%20Zone%26%238217%3B%20GOP%20Could%20Veto%20a%20Conservative%20Nominee%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inpolitical parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,primaries
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
“Super PACs, Outside Groups Dominate GOP ’16 Ad Spending”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77288>
Posted onNovember 4, 2015 12:37 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77288>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NBC News
<http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/super-pacs-outside-groups-dominate-gop-16-ad-spending-n457351>:
A whopping 95 percent of the TV ad spending in the Republican
presidential race has come from outside groups and Super PACs, while
just 5 percent comes from the actual campaigns, according to an NBC
News analysis of TV ad spending data from SMG Delta.
The opposite is true on the Democratic side — 95 percent of the TV
ad spending in the Democratic presidential contest has come from the
campaigns, versus just 5 percent from outside groups.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77288&title=%26%238220%3BSuper%20PACs%2C%20Outside%20Groups%20Dominate%20GOP%20%26%238217%3B16%20Ad%20Spending%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Supreme Court Justices Fear Loss of Control Over Redistricting
Cases” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77286>
Posted onNovember 4, 2015 12:36 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77286>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Adam Liptak
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/05/us/politics/supreme-court-justices-fear-loss-of-control-over-redistricting-cases.html?smid=tw-share>in
the NYT on Shapiro v. McManus:
At aSupreme Court
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org>argument
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-990_3f14.pdf>on
Wednesday about procedures in redistricting cases, the justices
appeared to be trying to reconcile two conflicting impulses. They
did not want to close the door entirely on challenges to
gerrymandering, but they also did not want to be required to rule on
them.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77286&title=%26%238220%3BSupreme%20Court%20Justices%20Fear%20Loss%20of%20Control%20Over%20Redistricting%20Cases%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Breyer and Alito on Key Role of
3 Judge Courts in Political Cases <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77284>
Posted onNovember 4, 2015 11:33 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77284>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
From today’s transcrip
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-990_3f14.pdf>t
in Shapiro v. McManus:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I mean, the other
alternative is it’s a three-judge district court, and
then we have to take it on the merits. I mean, that’s a
serious problem because there are a lot of cases that
come up in three-judge district courts that would be the
kind of case – I speak for myself, anyway– that we
might deny cert in, to let the issue percolate. And now
with the three-judge district court, no, we have to
decide it on the merits…
JUSTICE BREYER: I as far — as far as I
understand it, his strongest argument on the other sidewould roughly go –
he didn’t put it this way — like this:
On your side is the fact, well, why wouldn’t a
three-judge court decide a very important question of
law in this area? On the other side of it is that, well, you
just have left, in three-judge courts primarily, almost
exclusively, reapportionment issues, which are specially political.
And to put these all, you know, they are very —
because of the opinions you point out in Vieth,–
there’s a huge variation of all kinds of different legal
claims that might be made. And if there is a set of
cases where this Court should be careful as to when and
how and which it enters in which order, i.e.,
discretion, if we accept your view, that set of cases
where we should be particularly careful as to how we
proceed will be the set of cases where we have no choice 20
and we have to take immediately whatever variations on
the theme of disproportionate gerrymandering, da da da,
whatever order they happen to arise and whenever they
happen to arise, because we have no choice….
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS:
So now you have —now you have cases quite often, particularly in the most
sensitive ones, decided by a vote of two to one. So I
don’t know how that how that particular answer is
very responsive to the concern that Justice Breyer has
pointed out, which which is one I share….
JUSTICE ALITO: On the issue of political
sensitivity, if it goes to a single judge, you will have
a decision by a judge who has presumably been selected
by the spin of the wheel, or by at random, and then
you’ll have an appeal to a court of appeals panel that
is presumably chosen at random. Whereas if it goes to a
three-judge court, there will be a decision, and it may
involve some very sensitive findings of fact by a panel
that is handpicked by the chief judge, who is in a
position to appoint himself or herself to the
three-judge court and select a third district judge who
the chief judge believes is likely to agree with or
defer to the chief judge.
So I don’t see how that how that creates
an insulation against the appearance of political favoritism.
There’s a pending challenge to McCain-Feingold’s soft money ban where
the parties are fighting about whether they get a three judge court. It
could determine the outcome of the case. See my piece, The
McCain-Feingold Law May Doom Itself
<http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202734808860/OpEd-The-McCainFeingold-Act-May-Doom-Itself?cmp=share_twitter>,/National
Law Journal/, Aug. 16, 2015.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77284&title=Chief%20Justice%20Roberts%2C%20and%20Justices%20Breyer%20and%20Alito%20on%20Key%20Role%20of%203%20Judge%20Courts%20in%20Political%20Cases&description=>
Posted incampaign finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,redistricting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
What to Say If You Raise an Argument for First Time at #SCOTUS Oral
Argument <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77282>
Posted onNovember 4, 2015 11:24 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77282>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
From today’s transcrip
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-990_3f14.pdf>t
in Shapiro v. McManus:
MR. SULLIVAN: I think the important thing
is the amendments that we pointed out in our brief are –
were significant changes in — in the structure and
meaning of the statute. But I was responding to
Petitioners’ argument that this Court can simply look at
the words “not required” and know immediately what they
mean from reading the prior case law. And I don’t think
that will be an effective process for this Court if it gives full —
JUSTICE SCALIA: It’s a winner for you —
it’s a winner for you if those prior cases say what you say they say.
MR. SULLIVAN: I hope so, Your Honor. And I hope you’ll remember that.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, it should have been in your brief.
I mean, you should have made that point in your brief.
MR. SULLIVAN: Well, you know, I’m trying to
provide value now in addition to what we had in the brief.
(Laughter.)
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77282&title=What%20to%20Say%20If%20You%20Raise%20an%20Argument%20for%20First%20Time%20at%20%23SCOTUS%20Oral%20Argument&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Oral Argument Transcript in #SCOTUS Shapiro v. McManus Case
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77280>
Posted onNovember 4, 2015 10:50 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77280>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
You can read it here.
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-990_3f14.pdf>
I previewed this case (and two others the Court is hearing this term) in
Supreme Court Heads Back into the Political Thicket
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/hasen-oc-lawyer.pdf>,/Orange
County Lawyer/, Sept. 2015.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77280&title=Oral%20Argument%20Transcript%20in%20%23SCOTUS%20Shapiro%20v.%20McManus%20Case&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Reform Groups Urge Members of Congress to Reject Damaging Campaign
Finance Riders” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77278>
Posted onNovember 4, 2015 9:54 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77278>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Release
<http://www.democracy21.org/legislative-action/press-releases-legislative-action/reform-groups-urge-members-of-congress-to-reject-damaging-campaign-finance-riders/>:
Ina
letter<http://www.democracy21.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/SENATE-Reform-Group-Letter-Opposing-Campaign-Finance-Riders-11-4-15.pdf>sent
today, reform groups strongly urged senators and representatives to
reject damaging campaign finance riders that have been attached to
pending House and Senate Appropriations Committee bills and to
oppose any new campaign finance riders that would weaken or
undermine the campaign finance laws.
The groups included Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy
21, Issue One, League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and Sunlight
Foundation….
According to the letter:
The four damaging campaign finance riders already that have already
been added in the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to
appropriations bills would:
– Prevent the White House from issuing an Executive Order requiring
disclosure of campaign finance activities by government contractors;
– Prevent the IRS from issuing new regulations to stop nonprofit
groups from misusing the tax laws to spend secret contributions in
federal elections;
– Prevent the SEC from issuing regulations to require public
corporations to disclose their campaign-finance activities to their
shareholders; and
– Repeal longstanding limits on the amounts that parties can spend
in coordination with their candidates.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77278&title=Reform%20Groups%20Urge%20Members%20of%20Congress%20to%20Reject%20Damaging%20Campaign%20Finance%20Riders%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Some Supreme Doubts on Super-PACs”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77276>
Posted onNovember 4, 2015 7:05 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77276>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Frank Wilkinson
<http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-04/super-pacs-spoil-justice-kennedy-s-fantasy>for
Bloomberg View:
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy having second thoughts about
the campaign finance system he helped to create? The author of
Citizens United v. FECdefended
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77126>his handiwork before an
audience of Harvard Law School students last week. But his
confidence seemed shaken.
“In my own view, what happens with money in politics is not good,”
he said.
It’s hard to imagine what part of the system Kennedy believes is
working. It takes a lot of money to organize political campaigns and
communicate with tens of millions of voters. And the supply side of
campaign finance has simplyoverwhelmed
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/koch-brothers-wealthy-donors-gop-2016-freedom-partners-seminar-california-120663>the
enforcement side.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77276&title=%26%238220%3BSome%20Supreme%20Doubts%20on%20Super-PACs%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Checks and Balance: Let the Sun Shine, Conservatives!”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77274>
Posted onNovember 4, 2015 7:04 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77274>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Eliza Newlin Carneybehind the CQ paywall
<https://library.cqpress.com/cqweekly/>(butsoon to be free
<https://twitter.com/ElizaRules/status/661214713162932224>! yay!):
In theory, a recent report that finds American companies are taking
steps to shed more light on their political spending should score a
conservative home run.
That’s because the stepped-up disclosures described in the report,
released last month by the watchdog group the Center for Political
Accountability, are entirely voluntary. Conservatives typically
champion self-regulation as preferable to government regulation. And
the Fortune 500 companies ramping up their disclosures — from
Prudential to JP Morgan Chase, Exelon and General Mills — are
mainstream corporate leaders often allied with the GOP.
But last month’s report, released in tandem with the Zicklin Center
for Business Ethics at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton
School, drew instant fire from the Center for Competitive Politics,
which promotes political deregulation. The CPA-Zicklin Index “is a
deceptive tool used to sell more and more companies on the idea of
corporate ‘transparency’ with the partisan goal of removing these
voices from the public policy debate altogether,” declared a center
blog post.
Bradley Smith, who heads the center and chaired the Federal Election
Commission in the George W. Bush administration, says the report
falsely asserts that corporate political activity poses reputational
and ethical risks. He assails what he calls the report’s “illiberal
purposes of attempting to silence political speech through
intimidation and harassment.”
But corporate executives say political disclosure is simply good
business practice. Some are responding to shareholders who have
petitioned to draw back the curtain on political activities. Others
describe political transparency as part of a broader culture of
corporate accountability that helps their companies’ bottom lines.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77274&title=%26%238220%3BChecks%20and%20Balance%3A%20Let%20the%20Sun%20Shine%2C%20Conservatives%21%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
--
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/20151105/6ba2e2d2/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/20151105/6ba2e2d2/attachment.png>
View list directory