[EL] ELB News and Commentary 9/21/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Mon Sep 21 07:37:34 PDT 2015
Sixth Circuit Unanimously Rejects Challenge to Time Limits on
Solicitations in Judicial Elections
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76091>
Posted onSeptember 21, 2015 7:35 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76091>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The result<http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/15a0232p-06.pdf>in
this case involving denial of a preliminary injunction follows the
Supreme Court’s recent/Williams-Yulee/ case and the new strict scrutiny
standard set out there there. Judge Boggs was on the panel. Very
interesting.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76091&title=Sixth%20Circuit%20Unanimously%20Rejects%20Challenge%20to%20Time%20Limits%20on%20Solicitations%20in%20Judicial%20Elections&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,judicial
elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>
A Podcast Preview of the Upcoming #SCOTUS Evenwel One Person, One
Vote Case <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76089>
Posted onSeptember 21, 2015 7:28 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76089>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I sat down and talked<http://www.law.uci.edu/podcast/episode2.html>with
UCI Law’s Jonathan Glater about the Evenwel case for the newUCI Law
Talks podcast series <http://www.law.uci.edu/podcast/>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76089&title=A%20Podcast%20Preview%20of%20the%20Upcoming%20%23SCOTUS%20Evenwel%20One%20Person%2C%20One%20Vote%20Case&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Too Many People? Counties Respond To Letters Saying Voting Rolls
Are Bloated” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76087>
Posted onSeptember 21, 2015 7:27 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76087>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Doug Chapin
<http://editions.lib.umn.edu/electionacademy/2015/09/21/too-many-people-counties-respond-to-letters-saying-voting-rolls-are-bloated/>:
These letters and county official replies are just the opening shots
in what is likely to be an ongoing fight about voter rolls in
advance of the 2016 election. As civic groups and election officials
alike prepare to celebrate National Voter Registration Day tomorrow,
this story is a reminder that there is still much to be done after a
voter fills out that registration application.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76087&title=%E2%80%9CToo%20Many%20People%3F%20Counties%20Respond%20To%20Letters%20Saying%20Voting%20Rolls%20Are%20Bloated%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,NVRA (motor voter)
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>
“Parties and the Rethinking of Reform: Part II”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76085>
Posted onSeptember 21, 2015 7:12 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76085>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bauer blogs.
<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2015/09/parties-rethinking-reform-part-ii/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76085&title=%E2%80%9CParties%20and%20the%20Rethinking%20of%20Reform%3A%20Part%20II%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,political
parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>
NEW: @UCILaw Talks Podcast Series <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76082>
Posted onSeptember 20, 2015 8:34 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76082>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
There’s a new UCI Law podcast series hosted by my great colleague
Jonathan Glater. Erwin Chemerinsky gives a Supreme Court preview
inEpisode 1 <http://www.law.uci.edu/podcast/episode1.html>, I talk about
the forthcoming /Evenwel/ “one person one vote” case at the Supreme
Court inEpisode 2 <http://www.law.uci.edu/podcast/episode2.html>,
Michele Goodwin discusses the serious challenges raised by rising
numbers of women in prison inEpisode 3
<http://www.law.uci.edu/podcast/episode3.html>, and Kaaryn Gustafson
gives a peek into her fascinating research on American bastardy laws
inEpisode 4 <http://www.law.uci.edu/podcast/episode4.html>. Check them out!
*Announcement*
*NEW: UCI Law Talks Podcast Series*
From University of California, Irvine School of Law, the UCI Law
Talks podcast series features smart conversation analyzing critical
legal issues with professors at top-ranked UCI Law. The show is
hosted by Jonathan Glater. The debut episodes are now available
atlaw.uci.edu/podcast/ <http://www.law.uci.edu/podcast/>:
* Episode 1:Erwin Chemerinsky gives a preview of the 2015-16
Supreme Court term <http://www.law.uci.edu/podcast/episode1.html>
* Episode 2:Rick Hasen on the dynamic challenges posed by battles
to reshape election law
<http://www.law.uci.edu/podcast/episode2.html>
* Episode 3:Michele Goodwin warns of the serious challenges posed
by the rising number of women in prison
<http://www.law.uci.edu/podcast/episode3.html>
* Episode 4:Kaaryn Gustafson elaborates on her groundbreaking
research into the history of American bastardy laws
<http://www.law.uci.edu/podcast/episode4.html>
The podcast series is also available onSoundCloud
<https://soundcloud.com/ucilawtalks>, and will be available on
iTunes soon. Follow updates on Twitter at UCILaw
<https://twitter.com/UCILaw>#ucilawtalks.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76082&title=NEW%3A%20%40UCILaw%20Talks%20Podcast%20Series&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Party Rules to Streamline Race May Backfire for G.O.P.”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76080>
Posted onSeptember 20, 2015 12:21 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76080>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/us/new-party-rules-fail-to-speed-up-republican-race.html?ref=politics&_r=0>on
unintended consequences of party nomination reform.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76080&title=%E2%80%9CParty%20Rules%20to%20Streamline%20Race%20May%20Backfire%20for%20G.O.P.%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inpolitical parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,primaries
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
“Political parties go after million-dollar donors in wake of looser
rules” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76078>
Posted onSeptember 20, 2015 12:20 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76078>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Must-read WaPo
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/political-parties-go-after-million-dollar-donors-in-wake-of-looser-rules/2015/09/19/728b43fe-5ede-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html>on
the return of soft money:
The national political parties are urging wealthy backers to give
them 10 times more money than was allowed in the last presidential
election, taking advantage of looser restrictions to pursue
million-dollar donors with zeal.
Under the new plans, which have not been disclosed publicly, the top
donation tier for the Republican National Committee has soared to
$1.34 million per couple this election cycle. Democratic
contributors, meanwhile, are being hit up for even more — about
$1.6 million per couple — to support the party’s convention and a
separate joint fundraising effort between the Democratic National
Committee and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign.
In return, elite donors are being promised perks such as exclusive
retreats with top party leaders, VIP treatment at the nominating
conventions and special dinners organized by contribution rank at
this month’s RNC finance committee gala….
The dramatic pricing surge has been driven by a combination of two
significant legal changes: the 2014 Supreme Court/McCutcheon v.
Federal Election Commission/decision that did away with a cap on how
much a political donor could give in an election cycle, and an
expansion of party fundraising tucked into an appropriations bill
last December….
Both the RNC and DNC are taking advantage of a measure slipped into
a December spending bill that vastly expanded how much national
parties can raise by allowing them to collect high-level donations
for separate accounts to finance their presidential conventions,
building renovations and legal proceedings.
That means that along with $33,400 that a donor can give this year
to a party, he or she can give $300,600 more to the additional
accounts — a tenfold increase. And a single contributor can give the
same amounts again next year, meaning a couple could give a total of
$1.34 million during the 2016 election.
The provision was crafted behind the scenes by leaders of both
parties with the help of leading campaign finance attorneys,
including Marc Elias, now serving as general counsel of Clinton’s
campaign. Elias did not respond to a request for comment.
Paul Ryan <https://twitter.com/ThePaulSRyan/status/645430988382818304>of
the Campaign Legal Center: “Clinton JFC includes 33 state party
committees but@*CampaignLegal* <https://twitter.com/CampaignLegal>was
‘crazy’ to warn of this in McCutcheon.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76078&title=%E2%80%9CPolitical%20parties%20go%20after%20million-dollar%20donors%20in%20wake%20of%20looser%20rules%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
Trump Says He’d Spend $100 Million to Get Elected
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76076>
Posted onSeptember 18, 2015 7:04 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76076>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
That<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-nomination.html?ref=politics>wouldn’t
do the trick.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76076&title=Trump%20Says%20He%E2%80%99d%20Spend%20%24100%20Million%20to%20Get%20Elected&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“FEC to Vote on Super PAC Advisory Opinion”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76074>
Posted onSeptember 18, 2015 7:02 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76074>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ken Doyle
<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=75999005&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0h2z8r5a5&split=0>for
Bloomberg BNA:
The Federal Election Commission has signaled that it will vote in
the coming weeks on a potentially major advisory opinion request
seeking to clarify legal limits on super political action committees
(super PACs) and other campaign spending groups during the 2016
campaign.
The request, which came from Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias
of the firm Perkins Coie, was expected to be posted on the FEC
website late Sept. 18, starting the clock ticking on a 60-day period
during which the FEC is required by law to consider it. Elias had
requested that the FEC expedite the request and rule on it within 30
days, but it was not clear if this would happen.
Also uncertain was whether the six FEC commissioners, who have been
deeply divided on enforcement and regulatory questions concerning
campaign spending groups, would be able to muster the required
four-vote majority to answer Elias’s legal questions. The
commissioners are evenly divided among three recommended by
Democrats and three by Republicans.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76074&title=%E2%80%9CFEC%20to%20Vote%20on%20Super%20PAC%20Advisory%20Opinion%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,federal election commission
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>
--
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/20150921/1e927db3/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/20150921/1e927db3/attachment.png>
View list directory