[EL] ELB News and Commentary 10/28/15

Rick Hasen rhasen at law.uci.edu
Tue Oct 27 19:49:07 PDT 2015


    “New Challenge to ‘Soft Money’ Limits Faces Hurdles”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77097>

Posted onOctober 27, 2015 7:31 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77097>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bloomberg BNA 
<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=78213353&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0h4u0m1y4&split=0>:

    Attorney James Bopp faced skeptical questioning in a court hearing
    as he sought to convince a federal judge to convene a special,
    three-judge panel in a renewed a challenge to restrictions on “soft
    money” contributions to political parties (Republican Party of La.
    v. Federal Election Commission
    <http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/REPUBLICAN_PARTY_OF_LOUISIANA_et_al_v_FEDERAL_ELECTION_COMMISSION/1>,
    D.D.C., No. 15-cv-1241,motion hearing10/27/15).
    Judge Christopher R. Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the
    District of Columbia on Oct. 27 quoted Yogi Berra’s quip about “deja
    vu all over again,” as Bopp made his way to the microphone to argue
    on behalf of the Republican Party of Louisiana and two local party
    committees in that state.
    Cooper suggested Bopp’s latest case was similar to two earlier cases
    challenging party contribution limits established under the 2002
    Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). The previous cases included
    one brought just last year in which the same judge refused to
    approve a three-judge panel.
    Appointing such a special panel would be crucial to getting the
    Supreme Court to again consider BCRA’s party contribution limits
    because a decision by such a panel could be appealed directly to the
    high court….The judge did not indicate whether he would approve a
    three-judge panel in the new case, nor did he say when he would rule
    on the issue.

Related: My NLJ 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%3D77097&title=%26%238220%3BNew%20Challenge%20to%20%E2%80%98Soft%20Money%26%238217%3B%20Limits%20Faces%20Hurdles%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,political 
parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “Judge poised to strike down part of new Utah election law”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77095>

Posted onOctober 27, 2015 5:34 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77095>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Deseret News: 
<http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865640083/Judge-poised-to-strike-down-part-of-new-Utah-election-law.html?pg=all>

    A federal judge appears poised to strike down part of a disputed new
    state election law that defines how political parties choose
    candidates for elected office.

    U.S. District Judge David Nuffer signaled Tuesday that he intends to
    find forcing parties to hold open primary elections is
    unconstitutional. He noted that every other court has found that
    requirement violates the First Amendment.

    “Honestly, that’s how I think I’m ruling,” he said after hearing
    arguments from the Utah Republican Party, the Utah Constitution
    Party and the state.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77095&title=%26%238220%3BJudge%20poised%20to%20strike%20down%20part%20of%20new%20Utah%20election%20law%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inpolitical parties 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,primaries 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>


    Virginia House Map Redistricting Case Appealed to Supreme Court
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77092>

Posted onOctober 27, 2015 5:27 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77092>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

As expected <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76966>, here is thenotice of 
appeal. <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/behune-appeal.pdf>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77092&title=Virginia%20House%20Map%20Redistricting%20Case%20Appealed%20to%20Supreme%20Court&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


    “Republican super PACs dominate early ad spending”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77090>

Posted onOctober 27, 2015 5:14 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77090>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

CPI reports 
<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/10/27/18697/republican-super-pacs-dominate-early-ad-spending>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77090&title=%26%238220%3BRepublican%20super%20PACs%20dominate%20early%20ad%20spending%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


    “The Revenge of Scott Walker” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77087>

Posted onOctober 27, 2015 1:40 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77087>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT editorial. 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/opinion/the-revenge-of-scott-walker.html?_r=0>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77087&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20Revenge%20of%20Scott%20Walker%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,chicanery 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


    “Ending Super PACs: Is Speechnow Vulnerable?”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77085>

Posted onOctober 27, 2015 1:34 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77085>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Good lineup 
<http://org2.salsalabs.com/o/7003/p/salsa/event/common/public/?event_KEY=79789>at 
this Free Speech for People event.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77085&title=%26%238220%3BEnding%20Super%20PACs%3A%20Is%20Speechnow%20Vulnerable%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


    “Dictionaries 2.0: Exploring the Gap between the Supreme Court and
    the Courts of Appeals” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77083>

Posted onOctober 27, 2015 1:32 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77083>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Jim Brudney and Larry Baum have postedthis 
draft<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2662229>on SSRN 
(Yale L.J. Forum).  Here is the abstract:

    The remarkable rise in dictionary usage by the Supreme Court since
    the mid-1980s has been a subject of considerable scholarly and media
    interest. We published an article in November 2013 that explored the
    Court’s new dictionary culture in depth from empirical and doctrinal
    perspectives. In a Yale Law Journal Note one year later, John
    Calhoun embraced some of our findings, criticized others, and —
    importantly — broadened the inquiry to identify a sizeable gap in
    overall frequency of citation to dictionaries between the Supreme
    Court and the federal courts of appeals.

    This gap in dictionary usage is our primary focus here. Previously
    we analyzed nearly 700 Supreme Court cases decided between 1986 and
    2011, taken from three fields that together comprise substantial
    portions of the Court’s statutory docket: labor and employment law;
    business and commercial law; and criminal law. In this Essay, we
    examine dictionary use by federal courts of appeals in these same
    cases before the Supreme Court granted certiorari and reviewed them.
    Our analysis encompasses majority opinions from the circuit courts
    in 109 cases where the Supreme Court subsequently made affirmative
    use of dictionaries and in 106 cases where the Court’s decisions did
    not make use of dictionary definitions.

    We find that circuit courts cited to dictionaries in only one-sixth
    of the cases where the Supreme Court went on to use dictionaries
    after granting certiorari and in only about one of every nineteen
    cases in which the Court did not use dictionaries. The frequency of
    circuit court citation increased from the early Rehnquist Court
    period to the late Rehnquist and early Roberts Court years, but over
    that same period the gap between appeals court and Supreme Court
    references to dictionaries grew by substantial amounts. Further,
    when dictionary definitions were invoked, Supreme Court justices
    relied on those definitions to help justify the result (not simply
    as citations in dicta) over four-fifths of the time — twice as often
    as circuit court judges did when they cited dictionaries. Additional
    findings, reported below, support our conclusion that there are
    striking differences between the dictionary cultures in the Supreme
    Court and the courts of appeals.

    We begin by setting forth brief background regarding how our
    approach to analysis of dictionary use differs from Calhoun’s.
    Contrary to Calhoun’s assertions, there are no direct disagreements
    between us when our respective Supreme Court datasets are properly
    compared. We then describe our empirical approach to the courts of
    appeals data and present our findings, which relate to the basic gap
    in frequency of usage and reliance. We also describe some
    finer-grained observations regarding number and types of
    dictionaries used, and how often the circuit court judges and the
    justices define the same word in the same case. Finally, we suggest
    possible reasons why the Supreme Court uses and relies on
    dictionaries so much more often than circuit courts, and we outline
    plans for further research in this area.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77083&title=%26%238220%3BDictionaries%202.0%3A%20Exploring%20the%20Gap%20between%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20and%20the%20Courts%20of%20Appeals%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted instatutory interpretation 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=21>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “Chinatown seniors caught in middle of voter fraud claims — again”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77081>

Posted onOctober 27, 2015 1:08 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77081>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

SF Examiner. 
<http://www.sfexaminer.com/chinatown-seniors-caught-in-middle-of-voter-fraud-claims-again/>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77081&title=%26%238220%3BChinatown%20seniors%20caught%20in%20middle%20of%20voter%20fraud%20claims%20%E2%80%94%20again%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inabsentee ballots <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>,chicanery 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


    Quote of the Day: “Do We Want These Slow Learners Voting?”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77075>

Posted onOctober 27, 2015 12:08 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77075>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

“So it takes an entire semester to learn how to register to vote. 
Really?…..Do we want these slow learners voting? Or is this a stealth 
course paid for by taxpayers to train left-wing ‘community organizers’ 
like the League of Women Voters on how to agitate?”

—Angela de Rocha, spokeswoman for the Kansas Department for Aging and 
Disability Services, quoted inState agency spokeswoman calls League of 
Women Voters ‘left-wing’ agitators 
<http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/prairie-politics/article41544393.html>
For more on the conservative idea that uninformed or lazy people should 
be disenfranchised, see my Slate piece,The New Conservative Assault on 
Early Voting 
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/02/the_new_conservative_assault_on_early_voting_more_republicans_fewer_voters.html>.
Nice touch that Ms. de Rocha works for the Department of Age and 
Disability Services.
Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77075&title=Quote%20of%20the%20Day%3A%20%26%238220%3BDo%20We%20Want%20These%20Slow%20Learners%20Voting%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inThe Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voting 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>


    “San Francisco could lead on open source voting”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77073>

Posted onOctober 27, 2015 11:44 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77073>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

SF Examiner 
<http://www.sfexaminer.com/san-francisco-could-lead-on-open-source-voting/>:

    Nowhere in the United States is there an open source voting system.

    While Los Angeles and Travis County, Texas, are working on open
    source voting systems, San Francisco could emerge as a leader.

    But only if there is the political will and the funding.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77073&title=%26%238220%3BSan%20Francisco%20could%20lead%20on%20open%20source%20voting%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,voting technology 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40>


    “New Study: Bringing Voter Registration into the Digital Age”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77071>

Posted onOctober 27, 2015 11:34 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77071>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Brennan Center: 
<http://www.brennancenter.org/press-release/new-study-bringing-voter-registration-digital-age>

    America’s outdated voter registration needs improvement, but as
    technology has advanced, a growing number of states are using 21st
    century methods.

    A total of 38 states now use electronic and/or online voter
    registration, nearly double the total from our last study five years
    ago, according to anew report from the Brennan Center for Justice
    <https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/voter-registration-digital-age-2015-update>.
    These systems boost registration rates, increase voter roll
    accuracy, and save money, the study found.

    Electronic and online registration are two of the most popular
    modern methods of signing up voters, according to the report, which
    is based on interviews with more than 70 election officials nationwide.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77071&title=%26%238220%3BNew%20Study%3A%20Bringing%20Voter%20Registration%20into%20the%20Digital%20Age%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,voting technology 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40>


    Kevin Kennedy Responds to Criticism of WI GAB as Senate Considers
    Bill to Dismantle It <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77068>

Posted onOctober 27, 2015 11:32 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77068>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Read hissupplemental testimony 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Kennedy-Supplemental-Testimony-GAB-Restructure-10.27.15.pdf>.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77068&title=Kevin%20Kennedy%20Responds%20to%20Criticism%20of%20WI%20GAB%20as%20Senate%20Considers%20Bill%20to%20Dismantle%20It&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


    “Coming to SCOTUS: Battle of the dueling interpretive canons”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77066>

Posted onOctober 27, 2015 10:49 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77066>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Law in Linguistics: 
<http://lawnlinguistics.com/2015/10/27/coming-to-scotus-battle-of-the-dueling-interpretive-canons/>

    Karl Llewellyn <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Llewellyn>, a
    prominent mid-20th century legal scholar,famously said
    <http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/files/llewellyn_on_canons.pdf>that
    “there are two opposing canons on almost every point.” On November
    3, the Supreme Court will hear argument in/Lockhart v. United
    States/
    <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/lockhart-v-united-states/>,
    a case that presents about as stark a clash between opposing canons
    as you could ever hope to find.

    /Lockhart/is of interest to us here at LAWnLinguistics because the
    canons at issue are among the small group of “linguistic
    canons”—those that deal with language-related issues. In particular,
    they deal with resolving ambiguities that arise as a result of the
    statutory language having more than one plausible syntactic
    structure. I dealt at some length with the general issue of
    syntactic ambiguity, and with the specific canons that are now at
    issue in Lockhart, in my multipart look at/Reading Law: The
    Interpretation of Legal Texts/
    <http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Law-Interpretation-Legal-Texts/dp/031427555X>,
    by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and legal-writing guru Bryan
    Garner. (Of my previous posts about the book the ones most relevant
    here areSyntactic ambiguity
    <http://lawnlinguistics.com/2012/07/08/syntactic-ambiguity-part-3-of-scalia-and-garner-on-statutory-interpretation/>,Three
    syntactic canons
    <http://lawnlinguistics.com/2012/07/13/three-syntactic-canons/>,On
    Garner on Posner on Scalia & Garner
    <http://lawnlinguistics.com/2012/09/09/on-garner-on-posner-on-scalia-garner/>,
    andLast antecedents, series qualifiers, and psycholinguistics
    <http://lawnlinguistics.com/2012/10/08/last-antecedents-series-qualifiers-and-psycholingstics/>.)

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77066&title=%26%238220%3BComing%20to%20SCOTUS%3A%20Battle%20of%20the%20dueling%20interpretive%20canons%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted instatutory interpretation 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=21>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “A New Low in Campaign Finance” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77064>

Posted onOctober 27, 2015 10:45 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77064>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Today’s must-read comes from OpenSecret’s Robert Maguire, writingan 
oped<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/opinion/a-new-low-in-campaign-finance.html?_r=0>in 
today’s NYT:

    Carolina Rising has no credible claim to being a social welfare
    organization. But the key thing to remember here is that Carolina
    Rising is not an outlier. It’s a trailblazer. In 2014, it was one of
    anew breed of politically active nonprofits
    <http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/11/latest-candidate-must-have-your-very-own-dark-money-group/>that
    sprang up to assist a single candidate’s bid for a seat in Congress,
    with money from donors whose identities don’t have to be revealed.

    The largest was the Kentucky Opportunity Coalition, which supported
    Republican Senator Mitch McConnell’s re-election with more than $8.2
    million in reported political spending. Another group, Oklahomans
    for a Conservative Future, spent nearly $1.3 million backing the
    state legislator T. W. Shannon’s failed bid to be the Republican
    nominee for that state’s open Senate seat.

    Carolina Rising is the first of these nonprofits to file a tax
    return covering the midterms. Yes, that’s history now, but this is
    the most recent info available; such groups don’t have to submit
    their returns until 11 months after the end of their fiscal year, so
    it’s impossible to track them in anything like real time.

    But the document could be highly instructive for anyone paying
    attention to developments in campaign finance, including voters. It
    is also fair to wonder whether the Federal Election Commission and
    the I.R.S. will act to enforce existing laws. In recent years, the
    election agency has been frozen by partisan deadlock, and the I.R.S.
    has been cowed by Congress, while politically active groups have
    pushed through boundaries that once seemed impregnable, even in the
    opaque world of campaign finance.

    Has Carolina Rising set the bar low enough for either the F.E.C. or
    the I.R.S. to say, finally, that enough is enough?

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77064&title=%26%238220%3BA%20New%20Low%20in%20Campaign%20Finance%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,tax law and election law 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>


    “Watchdogs Urge FEC to Reject Democratic Super PACs’ Request to
    Green-Light Illegal Coordination with Candidates”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77062>

Posted onOctober 27, 2015 10:39 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77062>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

See here. 
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/news/press-releases/watchdogs-urge-fec-reject-democratic-super-pacs-request-green-light-illegal>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77062&title=%26%238220%3BWatchdogs%20Urge%20FEC%20to%20Reject%20Democratic%20Super%20PACs%E2%80%99%20Request%20to%20Green-Light%20Illegal%20Coordination%20with%20Candidates%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


    “Zenith City Decision: Duluth, MN To Vote On Ranked Choice Voting”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77060>

Posted onOctober 27, 2015 10:36 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77060>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

A ChapinBlog. 
<http://editions.lib.umn.edu/electionacademy/2015/10/27/zenith-city-decision-duluth-mn-to-vote-on-ranked-choice-voting/>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77060&title=%26%238220%3BZenith%20City%20Decision%3A%20Duluth%2C%20MN%20To%20Vote%20On%20Ranked%20Choice%20Voting%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inalternative voting systems <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>

-- 
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/20151027/79bac692/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/20151027/79bac692/attachment.png>


View list directory