[EL] ELB News and Commentary 11/10/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Tue Nov 10 07:59:58 PST 2015
"Poll Watch: Overseas Elections Offer Warnings for U.S. Pollsters”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77435>
Posted onNovember 10, 2015 7:57 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77435>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/10/poll-watch-overseas-elections-offer-warnings-for-u-s-pollsters/?ref=politics&_r=0>:
Pre-election polls in numerous countries this year have widely missed
their marks, often by underestimating support for candidates on the
ideological fringes. The polling failures in countries like Britain,
Poland and Israel point to technical issues that could well foreshadow
polling problems in the United States, many analysts believe.
“The industry has a collective failure problem,” said John Curtice, the
president of the British Polling Council and a professor of politics at
the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow. Partly this is the result of
changing methodologies. “It’s now a mix of random-digit dialing — that
is, telephone polls — and Internet-based polls based on recruited
panels,” he said. Both modes present potential problems.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77435&title=%26%238220%3BPoll%20Watch%3A%20Overseas%20Elections%20Offer%20Warnings%20for%20U.S.%20Pollsters%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Judge criticizes proposed changes to GAB; Bill opens politics to
corruption, he says” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77433>
Posted onNovember 10, 2015 7:51 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77433>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Leader-Telegram
<http://www.leadertelegram.com/News/Front-Page/2015/11/10/Judge-criticizes-proposed-changes-to-GAB.html>:
After serving on Wisconsin’s nonpartisan elections board for 6½
years, retired judge Thomas Barland of Eau Claire was succinct and
direct in summing up his disappointment with the state Senate’s vote
early Saturday morning to abolish the panel.
“It’s a great step backwards,” Barland said Monday.
Barland, who served as a Republican Assembly representative for six
years before a 33-year career as an Eau Claire County judge, called
the effort by the Republican-controlled Legislature to dismantle the
state’s Government Accountability Board politically motivated and
warned that going back to a partisan elections board could result in
a return to a stalemate situation in which nothing gets done.
“It opens the door to corruption in the future, potentially by both
parties,” he said of the measure that passed around 2:30 a.m. on an
18-14 party line vote. “It’s hurtful to good government.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77433&title=%26%238220%3BJudge%20criticizes%20proposed%20changes%20to%20GAB%3B%20Bill%20opens%20politics%20to%20corruption%2C%20he%20says%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Capital One Defends Garrett Donation Amid Anti-Gay Controversy”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77431>
Posted onNovember 10, 2015 7:48 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77431>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bloomberg
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-11-10/capital-one-defends-garrett-donation-amid-anti-gay-controversy?cmpid=BBD111015_POL>:
Capital One Financial Corp. is defending a donation to a Republican
congressman facing a backlash over alleged anti-gay remarks, saying it
bases political giving on business interests rather than social issues.
In a letter explaining its financial support for New Jersey
Representative Scott Garrett, head of a House panel that oversees the
banking industry, Capital One took great pains to tout its commitment to
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights. Still, the bank stressed
that it makes political action committee contributions based on
different criteria.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77431&title=%26%238220%3BCapital%20One%20Defends%20Garrett%20Donation%20Amid%20Anti-Gay%20Controversy%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Rethinking the ‘One Person, One Vote’ Principle”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77427>
Posted onNovember 9, 2015 8:27 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77427>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Charles Kelbley column
<http://www.thelegalintelligencer.com/id=1202741986221/Rethinking-the-One-Person-One-Vote-Principle?mcode=0&curindex=0&curpage=ALL>for
the Legal Intelligencer.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77427&title=%26%238220%3BRethinking%20the%20%26%238216%3BOne%20Person%2C%20One%20Vote%26%238217%3B%20Principle%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“LDF Deeply Mourns the Passing of Former Associate Director-Counsel
and Former EEOC Chair Jacqueline Berrien”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77425>
Posted onNovember 9, 2015 8:24 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77425>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Very sad news.
<http://www.naacpldf.org/press-release/ldf-deeply-mourns-passing-former-associate-director-counsel-and-former-eeoc-chair-jacq>
President Obama’s statement.
<https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/09/statement-president-passing-jacqueline-berrien>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77425&title=%26%238220%3BLDF%20Deeply%20Mourns%20the%20Passing%20of%20Former%20Associate%20Director-Counsel%20and%20Former%20EEOC%20Chair%20Jacqueline%20Berrien%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection law biz <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>
“Shirley Abrahamson drops legal effort to regain chief justice post”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77423>
Posted onNovember 9, 2015 8:20 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77423>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
No surprise.
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/shirley-abrahamson-drops-suit-in-attempt-to-regain-chief-justice-post-b99612884z1-343912882.html>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77423&title=%26%238220%3BShirley%20Abrahamson%20drops%20legal%20effort%20to%20regain%20chief%20justice%20post%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted injudicial elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>
“Lamar Alexander Seeks Path to Change in Senate”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77421>
Posted onNovember 9, 2015 7:31 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77421>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/us/politics/lamar-alexander-seeks-path-to-change-in-senate.html?ref=politics&_r=0>:
Nothing touches off a political war in the Senate like proposals to
tinker with the arcane rules that govern the often creaky chamber.
Talk of eliminating thefilibuster
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/filibusters_and_debate_curbs/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>is
called the nuclear option for a reason.
But Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, the cerebral former
Republican governor and cabinet member, may have come up with a
novel approach to winning support for the changes that many, if not
most, of his colleagues agree are overdue — and to enact them
without starting the congressional equivalent of Armageddon.
His idea? Use the next few months to develop, debate and approve
proposals to make the Senate more efficient, but then agree not to
institute the changes until 2017 — after next year’s election. With
no certainty about which party will win the majority next November,
the thinking goes, both Republicans and Democrats might be enticed
to roll the dice and embrace changes since there would not be an
obvious advantage to advance for either party.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77421&title=%26%238220%3BLamar%20Alexander%20Seeks%20Path%20to%20Change%20in%20Senate%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inlegislation and legislatures
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>,political parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,political polarization
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>
“Non-U.S. Citizen Indicted For Voter Fraud In North Texas”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77419>
Posted onNovember 9, 2015 4:23 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77419>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
CBS DFW reports.
<http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/11/09/voter-fraud-alleged-in-dallas-tarrant-counties/>
This is the first usage I’ve seen of “one citizen, one vote.” So do
children, felons, and the mentally incompetent have the vote under this
standard because they are citizens?
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77419&title=%26%238220%3BNon-U.S.%20Citizen%20Indicted%20For%20Voter%20Fraud%20In%20North%20Texas%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Christie Vetoes Measure to Expand Early Voting in New Jersey”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77417>
Posted onNovember 9, 2015 9:50 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77417>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bloomberg:
<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-09/christie-vetoes-measure-to-expand-early-voting-in-new-jersey>
Republican Governor Chris Christie vetoed an overhaul of New
Jersey’s voting procedures that Democrats and the League of Women
Voters said would have increased turnout, according to Assembly
Speaker Vincent Prieto.
The measure, dubbed the “The Democracy Act,” would have expanded
early voting, created online registration and automatically enrolled
people applying for a drivers’ license unless they opted out.
Christie, who vetoed a bill in 2013 that would have required polls
to open two weeks before elections, has said the latest effort would
have raised the risk of fraud.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77417&title=%26%238220%3BChristie%20Vetoes%20Measure%20to%20Expand%20Early%20Voting%20in%20New%20Jersey%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
CCP Statement on Cert Denial in CCP v. Harris
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77415>
Posted onNovember 9, 2015 8:48 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77415>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here
<http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2015/11/09/statement-on-center-for-competitive-politics-v-harris/>:
The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP), America’s largest
nonprofit working to promote and defend First Amendment rights to
free political speech, assembly, and petition, released the
following statement concerning the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision not
to review the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit in Center for Competitive Politics v. Harris:
“We are very disappointed that the Supreme Court decided not to
review the 9th Circuit’s decision. The case is not over and we will
study our legal options before making our next move,”*said CCP
President David Keating.*“It is possible, for example, that the
Court did not want to review the denial of a preliminary injunction
and will decide to hear the case after the lower courts have ruled
on the merits of the case.
“We call on Attorney General Kamala Harris to end this failed
policy. Last week, it was revealed that over 1,400 supposedly
confidential forms listing donors appeared on the state’s website.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77415&title=CCP%20Statement%20on%20Cert%20Denial%20in%20CCP%20v.%20Harris&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Analysis: A Peculiar Way to Disenfranchise Voters”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77413>
Posted onNovember 9, 2015 8:37 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77413>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Fascinating Ross Ramsey column
<http://www.texastribune.org/2015/11/09/analysis-peculiar-way-disenfranchise-voters/>:
There are many sneaky ways to disenfranchise voters — to rig the
electoral system so that one group’s voices are not quite as loud as
others’ —but the 23rd Congressional District of Texas might be one
of the most devious of all.
Texas lawmakers have designed a congressional district that is so
slippery that neither political party can hang onto it, and where it
is impossible for anyone to stay in office long enough to build up
enough clout to get much of anything done for the folks at home.
You will get an argument about that from the people who have held
the seat.Will Hurd
<http://www.texastribune.org/directory/will-hurd/>,Pete Gallego
<http://www.texastribune.org/directory/pete-gallego/>,Francisco
“Quico” Canseco
<http://www.texastribune.org/directory/francisco-quico-canseco/>,Ciro Rodriguez
<http://www.texastribune.org/directory/ciro-rodriguez/>andHenry
Bonilla <http://www.texastribune.org/directory/henry-bonilla/>will
all say, in one way or another, that they have been effective
representatives for the people who sent them to Washington, D.C.
Bonilla, a Republican, was there for 14 years. Rodriguez, a
Democrat, was there for four, but served in Congress for eight more
years representing another district — another redistricting tale for
another day.
Rodriguez lost in 2010 to Canseco, a Republican. Canseco lost to
Gallego, a Democrat, in 2012. Gallego lost to Hurd, a Republican, in
2014.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77413&title=%26%238220%3BAnalysis%3A%20A%20Peculiar%20Way%20to%20Disenfranchise%20Voters%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,redistricting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
In Evenwel, Will the Court Consider Whether States Must Base
Districts on Equal Numbers of People?
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77410>
Posted onNovember 9, 2015 8:34 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77410>byRichard Pildes
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>
In a Scotus blogcontribution
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/07/symposium-misguided-hysteria-over-evenwel-v-abbott/>to
a Symposium on the/Evenwel/case shortly after the Court took the case, I
suggested that the most interesting question in the case was actually
whether the Court would engage the issue of whether the Constitution
should be understood to/require/that States use total population as the
metric for one-person, one-vote purposes. That issue might fairly be
considered within the scope of the Question Presented, given how closely
bound up it is with the question of what the proper baseline is for
determining compliance with one-vote, one-person for state and local
election districts. At least three amicus briefs do indeed press the
position that the Fourteenth Amendment should be understood to require
total population as the standard for state and local districts, as it is
for congressional districts (look for the amicus briefs,here
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/evenwel-v-abbott/>, for
Common Cause, for the County and City of Los Angeles and other major
urban areas, and for the DNC). But none of these amici asked the Court
for argument time to address this issue.
The United States, which will argue as an amicus, comes very close to
endorsing this position, but does not push the Court to address the
issue. The United States devotes five pages of its brief to laying out
the central reasons total population ought to be the constitutional
baseline. Thus, the United States argues:
Adopting Texas’s hypothetical approach risks rendering residents of
this country who are ineligible, unwilling, or unable to vote as
invisible or irrelevant to our system of representative democracy.
But this Court has recognized in a variety of contexts that elected
officials are responsible to the popular will and represent their
entire constituency, including those who do not vote. . . Equalizing
total population across legislative districts ensures that our
system of representative government provides equal representation to
all people.
Similarly, the United States argues that a requirement that States use
total population in districting would protect against at least one form
of gerrymandering:
/Allowing States to choose which populations to equalize for Equal
Protection analysis would have other unfortunate consequences. It
would, for example, exacerbate existing redistricting
problems—problems this Court has recognized—by multiplying the
opportunities for gerrymandering and other political gamesmanship
that entrenches incumbents and excludes particular groups from full
participation in the political process./
But the United States stops just short of urging the Court to require
States to use total population. Instead, the United States suggests the
Court need not reach this question in order to uphold the redistricting
plan at issue. But Texas does urge the Court to go beyond just upholding
this plan; Texas presses the Court to declare that it would be
constitutional for Texas also to redistrict based on equalizing some
(unspecified) measure of voter population, rather than total persons.
Texas, in other words, asks the Court to resolve not just this case, but
to determine the general constitutional standard that governs State
redistricting.
Given the importance of the Court clarifying the fundamental principle
of what one-vote, one-person means, it is unfortunate that none of the
lawyers before the Court will be directly arguing that States are
required to equalize total populations across districts. From the
perspective of judicial minimalism, the Court could indeed simply uphold
the plan at issue without reaching the broader issue. But given
that/Evenwel/will force the Court to think carefully for the first time
in roughly 50 years about exactly what has to be equalized for purposes
of one-person, one-vote, there would be considerable benefit to
redistricting authorities throughout the country, in this highly charged
area, for the Court to provide clear guidance about an issue as
foundational as the metric for determining whether one-vote, one-person
has been complied with. In the absence of any counsel appearing for the
purposes of arguing that the baseline should be total population, it
will be interesting to see whether any of the Justices press this issue.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77410&title=In%20Evenwel%2C%20Will%20the%20Court%20Consider%20Whether%20States%20Must%20Base%20Districts%20on%20Equal%20Numbers%20of%20People%3F&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Democracy for GrownUps” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77408>
Posted onNovember 9, 2015 7:46 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77408>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I have writtenthis review
<http://newramblerreview.com/book-reviews/law/democracy-for-grownups>of
Bruce Cain’sDemocracy More or Less
<http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-More-Less-Political-Cambridge/dp/1107612268>for
theNew 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
<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 intheory <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 onNovember 9, 2015 7:42 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77303>byRick 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 onSoundcloud
<https://soundcloud.com/rick-hasen/elb-podcast-episode-6-nate>orsubscribe at
iTunes
<https://geo.itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/elb-podcast/id1029317166?mt=2>.
Share
<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 inELB Podcast <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=116>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
--
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/20151110/ab89ba2a/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/20151110/ab89ba2a/attachment.png>
View list directory