[EL] ELB News and Commentary 10/9/15

Rick Hasen rhasen at law.uci.edu
Thu Oct 8 20:01:33 PDT 2015 

    “Jeb Bush and Ben Carson Split on Voting Rights Act”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76556>

Posted onOctober 8, 2015 7:55 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76556>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT 
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/08/jeb-bush-and-ben-carson-split-on-voting-rights-act/?ref=politics>:

    Saying that he wanted the Voting Rights Act to be protected, Mr.
    Carson told CNN: “Whether we still need it or not, whether we’ve
    outgrown the need for it, it’s questionable. Maybe we have. Maybe we
    haven’t. But I wouldn’t jeopardize it.”

    Mr. Carson, who is black, went on to say that if he were president,
    he would reauthorize the act and that he did not understand Mr.
    Bush’s rationale.

The end of the article incorrectly suggests that the reason 
reauthorization won’t come up is because President George W. Bush 
reauthorized it in 2006 for 25 years. In fact, the only parts 
reauthorized for 25 years are Section 5 (which has been rendered 
inoperative by the /Shelby County/decision) and Section 203, language 
assistance provisions. The key Section 2 is permanent and does not come 
up for reauthorization.  (See my earlier post on some ambiguities in 
what Jeb Bush said todayabout this point. 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76536>) The problem all stems from how 
the question to Jeb Bush today was phrased.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76556&title=%E2%80%9CJeb%20Bush%20and%20Ben%20Carson%20Split%20on%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


    “The GOP sinks deeper into chaos. Can it still function as a party?”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76554>

Posted onOctober 8, 2015 7:49 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76554>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Today’s must-read 
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-struggle-to-regain-their-footing-as-a-party/2015/10/08/ed24da96-6de1-11e5-9bfe-e59f5e244f92_story.html>from 
Karen Tumulty in WaPo:

    Less than a year after a sweeping electoral triumph, Republicans are
    on the verge of ceasing to function as a national political party.

    The most powerful and crippling force at work in the
    ­once-hierarchical GOP is anger, directed as much at its own leaders
    as anywhere else.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76554&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20GOP%20sinks%20deeper%20into%20chaos.%20Can%20it%20still%20function%20as%20a%20party%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inpolitical parties 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,political polarization 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>


    Watch Video of CA Supreme Court Oral Argumen on Citizens United
    Advisory Vote <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76552>

Posted onOctober 8, 2015 7:22 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76552>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Here on YouTube. 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MYaziyfw0Y&feature=em-uploademail>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76552&title=Watch%20Video%20of%20CA%20Supreme%20Court%20Oral%20Argumen%20on%20Citizens%20United%20Advisory%20Vote&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


    “Million-Dollar Donors in the 2016 Presidential Race”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76550>

Posted onOctober 8, 2015 7:19 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76550>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT 
<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/top-presidential-donors-campaign-money.html?_r=0>has 
the list, which includes 10 corporations and other non-human entities.

Just as billionaires have become much less reluctant to spend their 
personal fortunes in campaigns, corporations are becoming more 
comfortable with becoming super pac donors.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76550&title=%E2%80%9CMillion-Dollar%20Donors%20in%20the%202016%20Presidential%20Race%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


    “We Were Sued by a Billionaire Political Donor. We Won. Here’s What
    Happened” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76548>

Posted onOctober 8, 2015 7:16 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76548>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Mother Jones 
<http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vandersloot-melaleuca-lawsuit>:

    TODAY WE AREhappy to announce a monumental legal victory for/Mother
    Jones/: A judge in Idaho has ruled in our favor on all claims in a
    defamation case filed by a major Republican donor, Frank
    VanderSloot, and his company, Melaleuca Inc. In adecision
    <http://www.motherjones.com/documents/2451499-vanderslootdecision>issued
    Tuesday, the court found that/Mother Jones/did not defame
    VanderSloot or Melaleuca because “all of the statements at issue are
    non-actionable truth or substantial truth.” The court also found
    that the statements were protected as fair comment under the First
    Amendment.

    *Read the full ruling here.*
    <http://www.motherjones.com/documents/2451499-vanderslootdecision>

    This is the culmination of a lengthy, expensive legal saga that
    began three years ago when the 2012 presidential primaries were in
    full swing. On February 6, 2012, wepublished
    <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mitt-romney-melaleuca-frank-vandersloot>an
    article about VanderSloot after it emerged that his company,
    Melaleuca, and its subsidiaries had given $1 million to Mitt
    Romney’s super-PAC. The piece noted that VanderSloot had gone to
    unusual lengths to oppose gay rights in Idaho, and that Melaleuca
    had run into trouble with regulators.

    VanderSloot’s lawyers sent us a letter complaining about the
    article. We reviewed their concerns and posted a correction about a
    few details. So far, not an uncommon scenario; it’s something every
    newsroom deals with from time to time.

    But that September, we broke the story of Romney’s 47 percent
    comments, which some have argued cost the GOP the White House. Four
    months later, VanderSloot—who was also one of Gov. Romney’s national
    finance chairs—filed a defamation lawsuit against/Mother Jones/as
    well as Stephanie Mencimer, the reporter of the article, and Monika
    personally (for her tweet about the piece).

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76548&title=%E2%80%9CWe%20Were%20Sued%20by%20a%20Billionaire%20Political%20Donor.%20We%20Won.%20Here%E2%80%99s%20What%20Happened%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


    “Watchdogs Urge Court to Review Partisan Impact of Virginia’s
    Proposed Remedial Redistricting Plans”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76546>

Posted onOctober 8, 2015 7:14 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76546>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

See this 
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/news/press-releases/watchdogs-urge-court-review-partisan-impact-virginia-s-proposed-remedial>press 
release.

Marc Elias <https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/652212908529741824>on 
Twitter: “I love this brief! Claims my client’s plan is a GOP partisan 
gerrymander. Been accused of lots, but this is a first!”

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76546&title=%E2%80%9CWatchdogs%20Urge%20Court%20to%20Review%20Partisan%20Impact%20of%20Virginia%E2%80%99s%20Proposed%20Remedial%20Redistricting%20Plans%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>


    “Jeb Bush Is Completely Wrong About the Voting Rights Act”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76544>

Posted onOctober 8, 2015 7:10 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76544>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Ari 
Berman<http://www.thenation.com/article/jeb-bush-is-completely-wrong-about-the-voting-rights-act/>writes 
for The Nation.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76544&title=%E2%80%9CJeb%20Bush%20Is%20Completely%20Wrong%20About%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


    “10th Circuit: Do Voters Really Need Political Spending Disclosure”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76542>

Posted onOctober 8, 2015 7:04 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76542>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Peg Perl 
writes<http://harvardlpr.com/2015/10/08/10th-circuit-do-voters-really-need-political-spending-disclosure/>for 
Harvard Law and Policy Review.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76542&title=%E2%80%9C10th%20Circuit%3A%20Do%20Voters%20Really%20Need%20Political%20Spending%20Disclosure%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


    “Two Socialist Party Candidates Sue California to Have Party Label
    on Ballot” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76540>

Posted onOctober 8, 2015 7:03 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76540>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

BAN reports. 
<http://ballot-access.org/2015/10/08/two-socialist-party-candidates-sue-california-to-have-party-label-on-ballot/>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76540&title=%E2%80%9CTwo%20Socialist%20Party%20Candidates%20Sue%20California%20to%20Have%20Party%20Label%20on%20Ballot%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inpolitical parties 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,primaries 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>


    “How Dodd-Frank Hurts Governors in the Money Primary”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76538>

Posted onOctober 8, 2015 9:55 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76538>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Gary Sernovitz 
<http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/how-dodd-frank-hurts-governors-in-the-money-primary>in 
the New Yorker.

His suggestion in the final paragraph that reversing Citizens United 
would fix things is wrong. It would take a reversal of SpeechNow etc.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76538&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20Dodd-Frank%20Hurts%20Governors%20in%20the%20Money%20Primary%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


    What Did Jeb Bush Mean in His Comments About Not “Reauthorizing” the
    Voting Rights Act? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76536>

Posted onOctober 8, 2015 8:20 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76536>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

It is hard to know exactly what to make of Jeb Bush’s comments.

According to this video 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=889lGjxQas8>from an Q and A with Jeb 
Bush, the exchange went like this (my transcription):

    Questioner: Where do you stand on the Voting Right Act? Do you
    believe it should be reauthorized? If not, why not?

    Bush: “Reauthorized” you said?

    Questioner: Yes.

    Bush: I think that …. if it it is reauthorize it to continue to
    provide regulations on top of states as though we are living in
    1960, because those are basically when many of these rules were put
    in place, I don’t think we should do that. There’s been dramatic
    improvement in … access to voting, I mean exponentially better
    improvement.  And I don’t think there’s a role for the federal
    government to play in most places—there could be some—but in most
    places, where they did have a constructive role to play in the
    1960s. So I don’t support reauthorizing it as is.

I think the fairest reading of these comments is that he is opposed to 
something like the Voting Rights Amendments Act, which would restore 
Section 5 Voting Rights Act preclearance in some form which the Supreme 
Court gutted in the /Shelby County/ /v. Holder/case. That’s not 
precisely “reauthorization”–the act was reauthorized in 2006, but then 
struck down in part in /Shelby County/. But this is how I think Bush 
took the question.

It is possible to read the comment more broadly to reject other 
provisions of the VRA as well, including Section 2, which provides 
national voting rights protection, does not expire, and was not at issue 
in /Shelby County/. If that’s what Bush meant, that’s a major statement 
and potentially a big change in position by a major Republican 
presidential candidate. I’m sure someone will follow up and ask Bush’s 
team if that’s what he meant, and my guess is they will say that’s not 
what he meant.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76536&title=What%20Did%20Jeb%20Bush%20Mean%20in%20His%20Comments%20About%20Not%20%E2%80%9CReauthorizing%E2%80%9D%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%3F&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,Voting Rights Act 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


    “Anonymous donors send millions to pro-Rubio group”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76534>

Posted onOctober 8, 2015 7:36 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76534>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

AP reports. 
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5926406673b047a7a34f1177e01014da/anonymous-donors-send-millions-pro-rubio-group>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76534&title=%E2%80%9CAnonymous%20donors%20send%20millions%20to%20pro-Rubio%20group%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


    Correction of the Day <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76532>

Posted onOctober 8, 2015 6:56 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76532>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/us/politics/amid-the-would-be-speakers-paul-ryan-sticks-to-his-no.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=2>on 
why Paul Ryan doesn’t want to be House speaker includes this correction:

    *Correction: October 7, 2015*

    An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to how
    frequently the House speaker typically travels to raise money. It is
    three weekends a month, not three weekends a year.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76532&title=Correction%20of%20the%20Day&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


    “Group: IRS should probe pro-Schuette spending”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76530>

Posted onOctober 8, 2015 6:52 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76530>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Detroit Free Press 
<http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/08/bill-schuette-michigan-advocacy-trust-political-ads/73526000/>:

      A national watchdog group is calling for an investigation into a
    tax-exempt Michigan political organization, saying it has spent
    millions on TV ads featuring Michigan Attorney General Bill
    Schuette, targeting his opponents, but failing to disclose any of
    its donors as required by law.

    In a complaint sent Wednesday to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen,
    Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) claims
    the Michigan Advocacy Trust has violated federal law by not telling
    the IRS or the Michigan Secretary of State how much it has spent on
    political ads or who its contributors are.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76530&title=%E2%80%9CGroup%3A%20IRS%20should%20probe%20pro-Schuette%20spending%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,tax law 
and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>


    Bauer on Wertheimer on “Chaos” in Campaign Finance
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76528>

Posted onOctober 8, 2015 6:50 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76528>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Here <http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2015/10/chaos/>.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76528&title=Bauer%20on%20Wertheimer%20on%20%E2%80%9CChaos%E2%80%9D%20in%20Campaign%20Finance&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


    “Online voter registration opens up access, but not always for all;
    States working to make sure sites are accessible for all”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76526>

Posted onOctober 8, 2015 6:49 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76526>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

That’s the lead story in this week’sElectionline Weekly 
<http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly>.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76526&title=%E2%80%9COnline%20voter%20registration%20opens%20up%20access%2C%20but%20not%20always%20for%20all%3B%20States%20working%20to%20make%20sure%20sites%20are%20accessible%20for%20all%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,voter registration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>,voters with disabilities 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=71>,voting technology 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40>


    “Alabama Puts Up More Hurdles for Voters”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76524>

Posted onOctober 8, 2015 6:48 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76524>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT editorial. 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/opinion/alabama-puts-up-more-hurdles-for-voters.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76524&title=%E2%80%9CAlabama%20Puts%20Up%20More%20Hurdles%20for%20Voters%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>


    “State wants federal judge to rule on Voter ID before March
    primaries” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76522>

Posted onOctober 8, 2015 6:46 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76522>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Winston-Salem Journal: 
<http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/state-wants-federal-judge-to-rule-on-voter-id-before/article_ca65a92d-d8e3-578b-9fc1-0e84bc9d02d7.html#.VhZzNfnPwQw.twitter>

    State attorneys want a federal judge to dismiss the legal challenge
    to North Carolina’s voter-identification law before the March 2016
    presidential primary, according to court documents filed Wednesday.

    And though the plaintiffs, including the North Carolina chapter of
    the NAACP, said they hoped to settle the matter before a trial,
    state attorneys said there’s no chance of that. A hearing is
    scheduled for Oct. 23 before U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76522&title=%E2%80%9CState%20wants%20federal%20judge%20to%20rule%20on%20Voter%20ID%20before%20March%20primaries%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,Voting Rights Act 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


-- 
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/20151008/2cd23dc7/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/20151008/2cd23dc7/attachment.png>

View list directory