[EL] CCP v. Harris
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Mon Nov 9 15:34:06 PST 2015
I think whatever is disclosed to the IRS should be disclosable to the
AGs for enforcement purposes, provided of course that they can keep the
information private (an allegation which I understand has not yet been
considered in the case). I would not support public disclosure of the
information of c3 groups that do not engage in political activities.
On 11/9/15 1:18 PM, Sean Parnell wrote:
>
> I’m curious what you think, Rick (and any other “reformers”) about the
> policy as a stand-alone issue, i.e. not in regards to what a ruling
> one way or another might mean for the regulation of money in an
> explicit campaign context, but as a policy issue in and of itself
> should state AG’s be able to require the revelation of donors to c3
> entities? And what would you think of a policy of mandated disclosure
> to the public of donors/members to c3 entities?
>
> Sean Parnell
>
> President, Impact Policy Management, LLC
>
> 571-289-1374 (c)
>
> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
>
> Alexandria, Virginia
>
> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of
> *Rick Hasen
> *Sent:* Monday, November 09, 2015 4:07 PM
> *To:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] CCP v. Harris
>
> I'd also look at what the trial court did in Doe v. Reed and Protect
> Marriage, as described in my "Chill Out" piece.
>
> On 11/9/2015 12:58 PM, Bill Maurer wrote:
>
> Thanks, Richard, I’ve read that case numerous times. It seems to
> prove my point that the standard is actually applicable only after
> the harassment has already occurred.
>
> I would also note that, in practice, the application of the case
> has been that only the Socialist Workers Party has been able to
> demonstrate harassment. They are a pristine example of something
> that is truly sui generis.
>
> Bill
>
> *From:*Richard Winger [mailto:richardwinger at yahoo.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 09, 2015 12:49 PM
> *To:* Bill Maurer; Edward Still; Allen Dickerson
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] CCP v. Harris
>
> read Brown v Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee, 459 US 87.
>
> Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org <mailto:wmaurer at ij.org>>
> *To:* Edward Still <still at votelaw.com <mailto:still at votelaw.com>>;
> Allen Dickerson <adickerson at campaignfreedom.org
> <mailto:adickerson at campaignfreedom.org>>
> *Cc:* "law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>"
> <law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 9, 2015 12:33 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] CCP v. Harris
>
> Rick’s commented that “There is no constitutional impediment to
> [disclosure], except as to those groups which can demonstrate a
> realistic threat of harassment.”
>
> I’ve never seen a discussion of what exactly a plaintiff would
> have to do to demonstrate a realistic threat of harassment.
> Wouldn’t evidence of a realistic threat be evidence of actual
> harassment (for instance, I don’t see those doing the harassing
> sending out a pre-harassment notice that they will be engaging in
> future harassment, although I suppose someone could do that)? And
> what about new groups with new issues? How are they supposed to
> demonstrate the realistic threat?
>
> In other words, I don’t see the “harassment” standard as
> protecting much of anything going forward—it is entirely backward
> looking and, for that reason, utterly useless as a protection
> against harassment in the first instance.
>
> That is exactly the point Brad made about the inadvertent
> disclosure analysis of the Ninth Circuit. The court essentially
> said, you can’t get protection from inadvertent disclosure until
> the information has been inadvertently disclosed. At which point,
> it doesn’t matter.
>
> And what’s the standard for harassment? Is it violence or
> coercion, because I’ve heard a number of commentators (including
> Justice Scalia) suggest that anything short of that is the price
> of being involved in politics? Be we already have laws against
> violence or coercion. So, are laws against assault supposed to be
> the things that demark the outer edge of how far the government
> can go in collecting information about those who decide to
> exercise their fundamental rights?
>
> Isn’t the real standard that anyone who participates in political
> activity in this country should be aware that by doing so they are
> opening themselves up to governmental scrutiny in perpetuity with
> no realistic protection against misuse of the information the
> government has collected?
>
> Of course, a legitimate response to this is “We don’t care if
> people are harassed or their information misused.” But, why not
> say that?
>
> Bill
>
> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf
> Of *Edward Still
> *Sent:* Monday, November 09, 2015 9:04 AM
> *To:* Allen Dickerson
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] CCP v. Harris
>
> The Questions Presented were:
>
> QUESTIONS PRESENTED
>
> 1. Whether a state official’s demand for all significant donors to
> a nonprofit organization, as a precondition to engaging in
> constitutionally-protected speech, constitutes a First Amendment
> injury.
>
> 2. Whether the “exacting scrutiny” standard applied in compelled
> disclosure cases permits state officials to demand donor
> information based upon generalized “law enforcement” interests,
> without making any specific showing of need.
>
> The cert petition is at http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74940.
>
>
> Edward Still
> Edward Still Law Firm LLC
>
> 429 Green Springs Hwy, STE 161-304
>
> Birmingham AL 35209
> 205-320-2882
> still at votelaw.com <mailto:still at votelaw.com>
> www.votelaw.com/blog <http://www.votelaw.com/blog>
> www.edwardstill.com <http://www.edwardstill.com/>
> www.linkedin.com/in/edwardstill <http://www.linkedin.com/edwardstill>
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Allen Dickerson
> <adickerson at campaignfreedom.org
> <mailto:adickerson at campaignfreedom.org>> wrote:
>
> The point was to protect CCP's donors from scrutiny and potential
> leaks, inadvertent or otherwise, by a state AG who believed she
> was entitled to their identities without making any showing of
> need whatsoever. The case did not address the public informational
> interest behind campaign finance disclosure, which we couldn't do
> in any case because that wasn't the state's stated interest.
> Campaign finance simply wasn't involved.
>
> (Steve: the stated governmental interest was greater efficiency in
> exercising the AG's law enforcement duties).
>
>
> On Nov 9, 2015, at 11:34 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu
> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
>
> I think this case had the potential to undermine campaign
> disclosure rules if successful, and I think that was the point.
> And yes, I absolutely would have written the same comment if
> it were the Brennan Center or the ACLU suing the Texas AG.
> Rick
>
> On 11/9/2015 8:08 AM, Allen Dickerson wrote:
>
> Rick,
>
> Your post seriously misinterprets CCP v. Harris, a case
> that has nothing to do with political activity or campaign
> finance. California's registration policy applies only to
> 501(c)(3) organizations. And CCP, like all 501(c)(3)
> groups, is prohibited from engaging in political activity.
> The informational interest undergirding campaign finance
> disclosure simply isn't implicated here.
>
> A thought experiment: would you have written the same
> comment if the Brennan Center or ACLU had sued the Texas
> AG on the same claim?
>
> I recognize the ever-present danger of seeing campaign
> finance issues everywhere when that's one's area of
> expertise. But our case is a very poor fit for your
> political disclosure narrative.
>
> Best,
>
> Allen
>
>
> On Nov 9, 2015, at 10:48 AM, Rick Hasen
> <rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
>
>
> “Democracy for GrownUps”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77408>
>
> Posted on November 9, 2015 7:46 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77408> by *Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I have written this review
> <http://newramblerreview.com/book-reviews/law/democracy-for-grownups> of
> Bruce Cain’s Democracy More or Less
> <http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-More-Less-Political-Cambridge/dp/1107612268> for
> the New Rambler Review.
> <http://newramblerreview.com/> It begins:
>
> /Modern American democracy is often messy,
> increasingly polarized, sometimes stupefying, and
> surprisingly decentralized. Our Congress functions
> (or doesn’t) mainly along party lines under rules
> set in a Constitution more than 200 years old
> which does not recognize political parties, and
> indeed was designed to stifle their emergence.
> Divided government in times of polarized parties
> has undermined accountability as each side can
> blame the other for policy failures, and we lurch
> from one potential government shutdown to another
> thanks in part to polarization and in part to
> internal fighting within the Republican Party.
> Much power devolves to the state and local level,
> where we often see one-party rule rather than the
> partisan stalemate of Congress./
>
> /State one-partyism extends even to the rules for
> conducting elections, where a majority of states
> use partisan election officials to set the rules
> of the game and to carry out our elections, and
> where state legislatures draw their own
> legislative districts only mildly constrained by
> Supreme Court one-person, one-vote requirements.
> Our campaign finance system is careening toward
> deregulation, with a series of Supreme Court
> decisions and partially enforceable congressional
> measures leading to the creation of political
> organizations, some of which can shield their
> donors’ identities, allowing the wealthiest of
> Americans to translate their vast economic power
> into political power. Money spent to influence
> elections is complemented by money spent to
> influence public policy through lobbying, creating
> a system in which those with great wealth and
> organizational ability have a much better chance
> of having their preferences enacted in law and
> having their preferred candidates elected, than
> average Americans have./
>
> /It is no wonder that the reform impulse in
> American politics is strong. States with the
> initiative process have experimented with top-two
> primaries in which the top two vote getters,
> regardless of party, go to a runoff, and
> redistricting reform featuring either citizen
> commissions or substantive limits on legislative
> self-dealing. The National Popular Vote movement
> seeks an end run around the antiquated rules of
> the Electoral College, which violate modern
> accepted principles of one-person, one-vote by
> giving small states outsized power relative to
> their populations./
>
> /Reformers push a constitutional amendment to
> overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens
> United and other cases which hamstring the
> government’s ability to control money in politics.
> Good government groups regularly clamor for
> redistricting reform (often joined by the
> political party on the losing side of
> redistricting in each state), expansion of voting
> rights for former felons and others, and the end
> of corruption and patronage. Some even call for
> constitutional conventions with citizen
> participants chosen by lottery./
>
> /But as Bruce Cain argues in his terrific new
> book, the never-ending efforts at reform present
> tradeoffs, and attempts to achieve either pure
> majoritarianism or government meritocracy can have
> unintended and unwanted consequences. Further,
> many reform efforts are oversold as a cure for all
> that ails American democracy. Cain argues for a
> Goldilocks-like pluralist reform agenda which
> recognizes that busy citizens lack interest in
> governing and capacity to make complex decisions.
> Instead, politics is conducted through
> intermediaries across the range of local, state,
> and national governing arenas. Pluralism
> “prioritizes aggregation, consensus, and fluid
> coalitions as a means of good democratic
> governance.” (p. 11)/
>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77408&title=%26%238220%3BDemocracy%20for%20GrownUps%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in theory <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=41>
>
>
> ELB Podcast Episode 6. Nate Persily: Can the
> Supreme Court Handle Social Science In Election
> Cases? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77303>
>
> Posted on November 9, 2015 7:42 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77303> by *Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Can the Supreme Court handle social science evidence
> in election law cases? Will lack of good data
> determine the outcome of the Supreme Court’s upcoming
> one person, one vote decision in /Evenwel v. Abbott/?
> What role will and should evidence play in assessing
> questions such as the constitutionality of
> McCain-Feingold’s soft money ban or Texas’s strict
> voter identification law.
>
> On Episode 6 of the ELB Podcast, we talk to law
> professor and political scientist Nate Persily
> <http://persily.com/> of Stanford Law School, one of
> the country’s leading redistricting and election law
> experts.
>
> You can listen to the ELB Podcast Episode 6 on
> Soundcloud
> <https://soundcloud.com/rick-hasen/elb-podcast-episode-6-nate> or
> subscribe at iTunes
> <https://geo.itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/elb-podcast/id1029317166?mt=2>.
>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77303&title=ELB%20Podcast%20Episode%206.%20Nate%20Persily%3A%20Can%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20Handle%20Social%20Science%20In%20Election%20Cases%3F&description=>
>
> Posted in ELB Podcast
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=116>, Supreme Court
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
> “Democratic Group Called iVote Pushes Automatic
> Voter Registration”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77406>
>
> Posted on November 9, 2015 7:38 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77406> by *Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NYT:
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/us/politics/democratic-group-called-ivote-pushes-automatic-voter-registration.html?ref=politics&_r=0>
>
> /As Republicans across the country mount an
> aggressive effort to tighten voting laws, a group
> of former aides to President Obama and President
> Bill Clinton is pledging to counter by spending up
> to $10 million on a push to make voter
> registration automatic whenever someone gets a
> driver’s license./
>
> /The change would supercharge the 1993 National
> Voter Registration Act
> <http://www.justice.gov/crt/about-national-voter-registration-act>,
> known as the “motor voter” law, which requires
> states to offer people the option of registering
> to vote when they apply for driver’s licenses or
> other identification cards. The new laws would
> make registration automatic during those
> transactions unless a driver objected./
>
> /The group, called iVote — which is led by Jeremy
> Bird
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/30/us/politics/obama-campaign-confronts-voter-id-laws.html>,
> who ran Mr. Obama’s voter turnout effort in 2012 —
> is betting that such laws could bring out millions
> of new voters who have, for whatever reason,
> failed to register even when they had the
> opportunity at motor vehicle departments…./
>
> /Kris W. Kobach, the secretary of state in Kansas
> and a Republican, who has been a leading advocate
> of stricter voting laws, said he opposed automatic
> registration because people who chose not to
> register were clearly not interested in voting./
>
> /“The assumption that by making what is already
> easy automatic that will somehow bring people to
> the polls is just erroneous,” Mr. Kobach said. “I
> just think it’s a bad idea. It’s not going to
> increase participation rates.”/
>
> /Mr. Kobach has pushed for some of the nation’s
> most restrictive voting laws, including one that
> requires proof of citizenship. He said automatic
> registration would make that kind of check
> impossible./
>
> /“You’re going to end up with aliens on the voter
> rolls,” Mr. Kobach said. “It’s inevitable that an
> automatic registration system would result in many
> of them getting on.”/
>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77406&title=%26%238220%3BDemocratic%20Group%20Called%20iVote%20Pushes%20Automatic%20Voter%20Registration%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in election administration
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter
> registration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>
>
>
> “Inside the abandoned plans of Ted Cruz’s super
> PACs” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77404>
>
> Posted on November 9, 2015 7:32 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77404> by *Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Teddy Schleifer
> <http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/08/politics/ted-cruz-super-pac-abandoned-plans/index.html> for
> CNN:
>
> /The super PACs are staffed in part by a few
> individuals with no formal political experience,
> including Neugebauer, who has been the groups’
> main fundraiser and formerly its chief executive
> officer — in addition to one of its lead donors.
> The groups have only recently begun hiring their
> first political professionals, including a new
> professional fundraiser: Campbell Smith, a finance
> official at the National Rifle Association, the
> super PACs confirmed to CNN./
>
> /The ditched buy is at the heart of the dispute
> between the campaign and the super PAC — a dispute
> that spilled out into the public this week, with
> several campaign advisers telling Politico
> <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/ted-cruz-silent-super-pacs-2016-215422> that
> they want to see Keep the Promise purchase
> advertising time immediately. Campaigns and super
> PACs frequently read one another’s messages in the
> press with a fine-toothed comb to learn thinking
> that they cannot legally directly share with one
> another./
>
> /It’s a reflection of the divided campaign finance
> world, where super PACs are allowed to raise
> unlimited amounts of cash (donations must still be
> reported to the Federal Election Commission), but
> the catch is that campaign and super PAC officials
> aren’t allowed to coordinate. Neugebauer’s pitch
> at The Broadmoor came without Cruz staffers in the
> room, for instance, a donor said./
>
> /And amid increasing questions about the super
> PAC, campaign officials are coming to the defense
> of Neugebauer, who left his role at the super PAC
> in a shake-up, and are praising his ability to
> incentivize two more eight-digit donations with a
> $10 million check of his own./
>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77404&title=%26%238220%3BInside%20the%20abandoned%20plans%20of%20Ted%20Cruz%26%238217%3Bs%20super%20PACs%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>
>
> “The battle over campaign finance reform is
> changing. Here’s how.”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77402>
>
> Posted on November 9, 2015 7:31 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77402> by *Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> WaPo talks
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/07/the-battle-over-campaign-finance-reform-is-changing-heres-how/> with
> Josh Silver of represent.us <http://represent.us/>.
>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77402&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20battle%20over%20campaign%20finance%20reform%20is%20changing.%20Here%E2%80%99s%20how.%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>
>
> Bauer on Justice Kennedy on Citizens United at
> Harvard <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77400>
>
> Posted on November 9, 2015 7:23 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77400> by *Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Bauer blogs.
> <http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2015/11/justice-kennedy-harva>
>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77400&title=Bauer%20on%20Justice%20Kennedy%20on%20Citizens%20United%20at%20Harvard&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
> Breaking: #SCOTUS <mime-attachment.png> Political
> Disclosure, Denies Cert. in CCP v. Harris
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77396>
>
> Posted on November 9, 2015 7:19 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77396> by *Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The Supreme Court, without noted dissent, has denied
> cert.
> <http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110915zor_4g25.pdf>in
> Center for Competitive Politics v. Harris.
> The question concerns whether CA AG Harris can have
> access to CCP <http://www.campaignfreedom.org/>’s
> donor list for law enforcement purposes (and not for
> public disclosure) or whether such access violates the
> First Amendment.
>
> This cert. denial follows a string of cases in which
> the Supreme Court has endorsed disclosure as the
> appropriate way to deal with political activity
> (rather than campaign finance limits). These cases
> include /McConnell v. FEC/, /Citizens United v. FEC/,
> and /Doe v. Reed/. Aside from Justice Thomas (and to
> some extent Justice Alito), the Court has a strong
> belief in the benefits of disclosure in providing
> valuable information to voters, deterring corruption,
> and aiding in law enforcement. It is clearJustice
> Kennedy is upset
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77126>that political
> forces have not enhanced disclosure since /Citizens
> United/. There is no constitutional impediment to it,
> except as to those groups which can demonstrate a
> realistic threat of harassment.
>
> The claims of harassment of contributors to
> conservatives causes have turned out to be greatly
> exaggerated. I explore this most recently in Chill
> Out: A Qualified Defense of Campaign Finance
> Disclosure Laws in the Internet Age
> <http://ssrn.com/abstract=1948313>, 27 /Journal of Law
> and Politics/ 557 (2012).
>
> This is good news, although disclosure is far from
> enough
> <http://www.amazon.com/Plutocrats-United-Campaign-Distortion-Elections/dp/0300212453/ref=la_B0089NJCR2_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1430416698&sr=1-7> to
> deal with other problems with our campaign finance system.
>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77396&title=Breaking%3A%20%23SCOTUS%20%E2%9D%A4%EF%B8%8F%20Political%20Disclosure%2C%20Denies%20Cert.%20in%20CCP%20v.%20Harris&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, Supreme Court
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
> “California’s ballot could be a blockbuster next
> November” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77394>
>
> Posted on November 8, 2015 7:05 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77394> by *Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> John Myers
> <http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pol-california-ballot-measures-2016-20151108-story.html> for
> the LAT:
>
> /The list of measures is very much a work in
> progress. Most campaigns are still gathering voter
> signatures or waiting for their proposals to be
> vetted by state officials./
>
> /But political strategists have identified at
> least 15 — perhaps as many as 19 –measures that
> all have a shot at going before voters next fall./
>
> /The last time California’s ballot was that long
> was in November 2004, when there were16
> propositions
> <http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2004-general/formatted_ballot_measures_detail.pdf>.
> The March 2000 ballot had 20
> <http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2000-primary/measures.pdf>./
>
> /Here are the expected 2016 ballot initiatives
> <http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pol-california-ballot-box-2016-20151108-story.html>/
>
> /A number of political forces help explain why so
> many are lined up now. For starters, there’s the
> 2011 law
> <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb_202_bill_20110908_amended_asm_v97.html> that
> moved everything but measures written by the
> Legislature to the general election ballot. As a
> result, June primary ballots are now almost barren
> of contentious campaigns./
>
> /There is also a lingering hangover from the
> state’s record-low voter turnout in 2014: a new
> and extremely low number of voter signatures
> needed to qualify an initiative for the ballot./
>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77394&title=%26%238220%3BCalifornia%26%238217%3Bs%20ballot%20could%20be%20a%20blockbuster%20next%20November%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in direct democracy
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>
>
>
> “As Lawrence Lessig’s Long-Shot Bid Ends, What’s
> To Come For His Key Issue?”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77392>
>
> Posted on November 8, 2015 4:26 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77392> by *Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Michel Martin interviews
> <http://www.npr.org/2015/11/08/455243856/as-lawrence-lessigs-long-shot-bid-ends-whats-to-come-for-his-key-issue?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=politics&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews>Lessig
> for NPR.
>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77392&title=%26%238220%3BAs%20Lawrence%20Lessig%26%238217%3Bs%20Long-Shot%20Bid%20Ends%2C%20What%26%238217%3Bs%20To%20Come%20For%20His%20Key%20Issue%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>
>
> “Lawmakers Ponder New Redistricting Methods”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77390>
>
> Posted on November 8, 2015 1:03 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77390> by *Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> CBS Miami
> <http://miami.cbslocal.com/2015/11/06/lawmakers-ponder-new-redistricting-methods/>:
>
> /Oliva, who is set to take over as speaker of the
> House after the 2018 elections, said in the wake
> of the failed session that he was ready to
> consider an independent redistricting commission
> that would recommend maps to the Legislature. The
> House and Senate also failed to agree on a
> congressional redistricting plan during an August
> special session./
>
> /“I’m for looking into it, because I certainly
> think that we need to have maps that aren’t
> disputed halfway into the next Census,” Oliva said./
>
> /At the same time, he pointed out some of the
> pitfalls for a commission./
>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77390&title=%26%238220%3BLawmakers%20Ponder%20New%20Redistricting%20Methods%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in citizen commissions
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=7>, redistricting
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
>
>
> “‘SNL’ Gives Donald Trump Just 12 Minutes On
> Screen” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77388>
>
> Posted on November 8, 2015 12:59 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77388> by *Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Variety
> <http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/donald-trump-saturday-night-live-12-minutes-1201636040/>:
>
> /His minimal appearance on the show would suggest
> NBC <http://variety.com/t/nbc/> was extremely
> cognizant of TV’s so-called “equal time” rule,
> which mandates that U.S. broadcast and radio
> stations that grant appearances to political
> candidates must provide an equal amount of time to
> other candidates who request it….Candidates who
> want equal time are not guaranteed to get what
> Trump received. NBC could send them to various
> programs operated by NBC News, or to
> NBC-owned stations or some of the network’s
> affiliates. But other people striving for the
> office could certainly gain publicity for
> themselves by making the request – and bring more
> scrutiny to the broadcast network, which is owned
> by Comcast’s NBCUniversal unit./
>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77388&title=%26%238220%3B%E2%80%98SNL%E2%80%99%20Gives%20Donald%20Trump%20Just%2012%20Minutes%20On%20Screen%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>
>
> What To Do About Truthiness in Campaigns? Not Much
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77386>
>
> Posted on November 8, 2015 12:54 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77386> by *Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The New York Times notes that truth
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/08/us/politics/candidates-stick-to-script-if-not-the-truth-in-2016-race.html?ref=politics>seems
> to be a particular casualty of the 2016 election.
>
> It might make one think of laws barring false campaign
> speech. But there are serious constitutional
> impediments to such laws, as I explored recently in A
> Constitutional Right to Lie in Campaigns and
> Elections?
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2151618>,
> 74/Montana Law Review/ 53 (2013).
>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77386&title=What%20To%20Do%20About%20Truthiness%20in%20Campaigns%3F%20Not%20Much&description=>
>
> Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>
>
> “In Seattle, a Campaign Finance Plan That Voters
> Control” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77384>
>
> Posted on November 8, 2015 12:52 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77384> by *Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NYT editorial:
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/08/opinion/sunday/in-seattle-a-campaign-finance-plan-that-voters-control.html?ref=opinion&_r=0>
>
> /In Tuesday, Seattle voters advanced the city’s
> reputation for progressivism when they approved a
> bold and unusual campaign finance reform plan. The
> plan will draw on real estate taxes to give every
> registered voter $100 in “democracy vouchers” to
> spend on candidates in the next city elections./
>
> /The 10-year, $30 million experiment in taxpayer
> subsidized elections was approved by a 20 percent
> margin in an initiative that supporters said was a
> reaction to the ability of affluent donors to
> dominate campaigns. Under the plan, every voter
> will receive four $25 vouchers in every election
> cycle to be used only as campaign contributions to
> candidates in city races./
>
> /Candidates are free to decline the money, but
> those who accept it will have to observe lower
> campaign spending and contribution limits, and
> agree to participate in at least three debates
> against rivals. The program will be financed by a
> property tax levy that works out to an estimated
> $9 a year on a $450,000 property. The unusual
> initiative is being closely watched by government
> reform groups in other parts of the nation, some
> of which helped finance the effort to get the
> initiative approved./
>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77384&title=%26%238220%3BIn%20Seattle%2C%20a%20Campaign%20Finance%20Plan%20That%20Voters%20Control%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>
>
> Listen to the Oral Argument in Shapiro v. McManus
> Case <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77382>
>
> Posted on November 8, 2015 12:40 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77382> by *Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Here <https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-990>, at Oyez.
>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77382&title=Listen%20to%20the%20Oral%20Argument%20in%20Shapiro%20v.%20McManus%20Case&description=>
>
> Posted in redistricting
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
> “Garcetti explains email endorsement mistake”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77380>
>
> Posted on November 8, 2015 12:31 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77380> by *Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> KPCC reports.
> <http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/11/07/55516/garcetti-explains-email-endorsement-mistake/>
>
> /Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti expanded Friday
> on an email gaffe involving his endorsement of
> presidential candidate Hillary Clinton./
>
> /The Thursday email episode made headlines around
> the country. Through a city email account, a
> communications staffer for the mayor sent out an
> email
> <http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/11/05/55483/la-mayor-endorses-clinton-in-2016-white-house-cont/> quoting
> Garcetti endorsing Clinton for president. Just
> over an hour later, that email was retracted./
>
> /Even later on Thursday, his campaign confirmed
> that Garcetti is backing Clinton./
>
> /At an event downtown Friday afternoon, Garcetti
> called the email from his office a mistake./
>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77380&title=%26%238220%3BGarcetti%20explains%20email%20endorsement%20mistake%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>
>
> “Feds investigate Gov. Susana Martinez adviser Jay
> McClesky, campaign funds”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77378>
>
> Posted on November 8, 2015 12:26 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77378> by *Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Santa Fe New Mexican
> <http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/federal-probe-targets-gov-s-top-adviser-mccleskey/article_6cb560e4-4c58-5b1d-b1b9-f64109f0a884.html>:
>
> /For the past several months, the FBI has been
> interviewing some state Republicans about Gov.
> Susana Martinez’s fundraising activities going
> back to her first run for governor./
>
> /One prominent New Mexico Republican, who spoke on
> the condition of anonymity, confirmed being
> interviewed in recent months by federal agents
> about funds from Martinez’s campaign, as well as
> money from her 2011 inauguration committee, going
> to the governor’s political consultant, Jay
> McCleskey./
>
> /This person also said agents asked questions
> about different “fundraising vehicles,” such as
> political action committees, used by Martinez’s
> political wing, though it was unclear what
> potential violations federal agents are
> investigating./
>
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77378&title=%26%238220%3BFeds%20investigate%20Gov.%20Susana%20Martinez%20adviser%20Jay%20McClesky%2C%20campaign%20funds%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, chicanery
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
>
> --
>
> 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 <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
>
> hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> <http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/>
>
> http://electionlawblog.org <http://electionlawblog.org/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> --
>
> 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 <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
>
> hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> <http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/>
>
> http://electionlawblog.org <http://electionlawblog.org/>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Spam <about:blank>
> Phish/Fraud <about:blank>
> Not spam <about:blank>
> Forget previous vote <about:blank>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Spam
> <https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09PDwQ10W&m=cbc9018b5d62&t=20151109&c=s>
> Phish/Fraud
> <https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09PDwQ10W&m=cbc9018b5d62&t=20151109&c=p>
> Not spam
> <https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09PDwQ10W&m=cbc9018b5d62&t=20151109&c=n>
> Forget previous vote
> <https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09PDwQ10W&m=cbc9018b5d62&t=20151109&c=f>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Law-election mailing list
>
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> --
> 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 <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> http://electionlawblog.org
--
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/20151109/9a57ba99/attachment.html>
View list directory