[EL] ELB News and Commentary 9/26/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Fri Sep 25 21:44:11 PDT 2015
correction:
One of the briefs listed at the Moritz cite as an ACLU brief is actually
an ACRU brief:
* Brief Amicus Curiae of ACRU
<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/EvenwelACLUBrief08052015.pdf>[corrected]pdf
file(filed 8/05/15)
On 9/25/15 8:34 PM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>
>
> “Sacramento County seeks review of elections office”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76203>
>
> Posted onSeptember 25, 2015 7:16 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76203>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> SacBee:
> <http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/local-election/article35055948.html>
>
> Sacramento County plans to hire a consultant to review its
> elections office following complaints from city clerks about the
> handling of last year’s elections.
>
> As reported by The Sacramento Bee last month
> <http://www.sacbee.com/news/investigations/the-public-eye/article29754133.html>,
> current and former clerks in Sacramento, Galt and Rancho Cordova
> said the elections office had become less reliable in the past 18
> months. The office published inaccurate information about contests
> in Sacramento and Rancho Cordova in sample ballot guides and
> provided Galt’s clerk with wrong information about the ballot
> order of council races, among other things.
>
> The complaints are one reason Sacramento County Chief Deputy
> Executive Paul Lake is asking for a review of the office. As head
> of the Countywide Services agency, Lake oversees the office and
> its chief, Registrar of Voters Jill LaVine.
>
> “We want to see what we can do to improve,” he said. “We want to
> have good customer service.”
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76203&title=%E2%80%9CSacramento%20County%20seeks%20review%20of%20elections%20office%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
>
>
> Amicus Briefs in Evenwel Case <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76195>
>
> Posted onSeptember 25, 2015 7:14 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76195>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I’ve already linked to thePersily et al. brief.
> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/evenwel-persily-Brief.pdf>
>
> I have also received briefs from:
>
> the DNC
> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/14-940bsacDemocraticNationalCommittee.pdf>
>
> Common Cause
> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/14-940-bsac-Common-Cause.pdf>
>
> Harris County
> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/14-940-bsac-Harris-Cty-Tx.pdf>
>
> Brennan Center
> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Brennan-Center-Amicus-Curiae-Brief.pdf>
>
> Former census bureau directors
> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/14-940-bsac-Former-Directors-of-the-U.S.-Census-Bureau.pdf>
>
> Constitutional Accountability Center
> <http://theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/briefs/Evenwel_v_Abbott_Amicus_Final.pdf>
>
> ACLU
> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/14-940-bsac-The-American-Civil-Liberties-Union.pdf>
>
> Here is a list of additional briefs on the merits via Moritz
> <http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/Evenwel.v.Abbott.php>:
>
> * Brief for Appellants
> <http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/EvenwelBrief07312015.pdf>pdf
> file(filed 7/31/15)
> * Brief Amicus Curiae of ACLU
> <http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/EvenwelACLUBrief08052015.pdf>pdf
> file(filed 8/05/15)
> * Brief Amicus Curiae of Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense
> Fund, Inc.
> <http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/EvenwelEagleFound08072015.pdf>pdf
> file(filed 8/07/15)
> * Brief Amicus Curiae of Project
> 21<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/EvenwelProject21Brief08072015.pdf>pdf
> file(filed 8/07/15)
> * Brief Amicus Curiae of Tennessee State Legislators and The
> Judicial Education Project
> <http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/EvenwelEagleFound08072015.pdf>pdf
> file(filed 8/07/15)
> * Brief Amici Curiae of Cato Institute and Reason Foundation
> <http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/EvenwelCatoBrief08072015.pdf>pdf
> file(filed 8/07/15)
> * Brief Amicus Curiae of Mountain States Legal Foundation
> <http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/EvenwelMountStatesBrief08072015.pdf>pdf
> file(filed 8/07/15)
> * Brief Amici Curiae of Demographers Peter A. Morrison, et al
> <http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/EvenwelDemographersBrief08072015.pdf>.pdf
> file(filed 8/07/15)
> * Brief Amicus Curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
> <http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/EvenwelCenterConBrief08072015.pdf>pdf
> file(filed 8/07/15)
> * Brief Amicus Curiae of Immigration Reform Law Institute
> <http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/EvenwelImmiReformBrief08072015.pdf>pdf
> file(filed 8/07/15)
> * Brief Amici Curiae of Judicial Watch, Inc., et al.
> <http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/EvenwelJudicialWatchBrief08072015.pdf>pdf
> file(filed 8/07/15)
> * Brief Amicus Curiae of Yakima, Washington
> <http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/EvenwelYakimaBrief08072015.pdf>pdf
> file(filed 8/07/15)
> * Brief of Appellees
> <http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Evenwel-TexasBrief091815.pdf>pdf
> file(filed 9/18/15)
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76195&title=Amicus%20Briefs%20in%20Evenwel%20Case&description=>
> Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
> Political Fragmentation with a Vengeance: John Boehner’s
> Resignation <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76189>
>
> Posted onSeptember 25, 2015 12:57 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76189>byRichard Pildes
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>
>
> I have been arguing for some time now that “political fragmentation”
> is a defining element of our political era. The decline in the
> capacity and power of party leaders in Congress to bring along their
> caucuses to support leadership positions has now been brought home
> dramatically with John Boehner’s announced resignation. As I put it
> in/Romanticizing Democracy, Political Fragmentation, and the Decline
> of American Government/,
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2546042>124 Yale
> Law J. 804 (2014), by “‘fragmentation,’ I mean the external diffusion
> ofpoliticalpower away from thepoliticalparties as a whole and the
> internal diffusion of power away from the party leadership to
> individual party members and officeholders.”
>
> In my view, the decline in the power of party leaders is attributable
> to at least two related transformations. One is the communications
> revolution, which now enables the most junior lawmakers to reach out
> to constituencies, including national constituencies, without being
> dependent on party support for building a national stature. The
> second, related phenomenon is the fundraising revolution, which
> enables officeholders to raise money through social media in a way
> that also can empower even junior legislators and free them from
> overwhelming dependence on the political parties. The power that Ted
> Cruz or Elizabeth Warren were able to marshal in their first year in
> office, which would have been unimaginable a few decades ago, is a
> result of these transformations. In the House, the rise of extremely
> safe election districts further contributes.
>
> In today’s online Washington Post, Karen Tumulty, who covers Congress,
> provides some historical perspective on the decline in the power of
> the Speaker of the House along similar lines. As she puts ithere:
> <http://%E2%80%9CIt%E2%80%99s%20my%20job%20to%20look%20out%20over%20the%20horizon,%20make%20sure%20I%20know%20where%20we%E2%80%99re%20going,%E2%80%9D%20Boehner%20once%20said%20when%20asked%20to%20define%20the%20role%20of%20speaker.%20%E2%80%9CAnd%20to%20make%20sure%20the%20team%20is%20working%20together.%E2%80%9D%20In%20other%20words,%20a%20job%20that%20may%20be%20all%20but%20undoable%20in%20today%27s%20politics./>
>
> The speakership itself no longer wields the influence it once did.
> Sam Rayburn’s old dictum to new members that they should “go along
> to get along” worked in an era where power within the institution
> was accumulated over decades, by climbing in seniority through the
> committee system. Now, even the most junior member can build a
> national base by stoking ideological fires through mass media. . . .
>
> “It’s my job to look out over the horizon, make sure I know where
> we’re going,” Boehner once said when asked to define the role of
> speaker. “And to make sure the team is working together.”
>
> In other words, a job that may be all but undoable in today’s
> politics.
>
> Political fragmentation that empowers the more ideologically extreme
> wings of the parties makes the American system of separated powers all
> the more difficult to function. The political figures who most
> strongly internalize the incentives to make their political parties
> appealing to a broad electorate are the party leaders; in the context
> of highly polarized political parties, it is these party leaders who
> are most likely to be the sources of compromise and deal-making that
> enable the separated powers system to engage major issues of the day.
> But when party leaders lack the power to bring their recalcitrant
> members along, those forces of centrism inevitably diminish.
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76189&title=Political%20Fragmentation%20with%20a%20Vengeance%3A%20%20John%20Boehner%E2%80%99s%20Resignation&description=>
> Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
> Probably the Most Important Brief in Evenwel Has Just Been Filed
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76186>
>
> Posted onSeptember 25, 2015 7:27 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76186>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> It is the amicus
> brief<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/evenwel-persily-Brief.pdf>of
> Nate Persily, Bernie Grofman, Charles Stewart, Steve Ansolabehere, and
> Bruce Cain. Hard to think of a better A-list of political scientists
> working at the intersection of election law and political science.
> Here is the summary of the argument:
>
> The United States Constitution requires the creation of a single
> population dataset: the decennial Census’s “actual enumeration” of
> persons. U.S. Const. art. I, § 2; amend. XIV. As such, states
> and localities, almost without exception, have used this dataset
> to build redistricting plans, and courts have repeatedly upheld
> plans that do so. Neither the federal government, nor any state,
> maintains an address list of eligible voters that would allow for
> redistricting on that basis. Surveys, funded by
> congressional whim, that provide partial estimates of
> eligibility based on citizenship are a poor substitute for the
> census redistricting dataset. An interpretation of the Fourteenth
> Amendment that would prohibit the use of the most accurate and
> only constitutionally mandated population dataset and, in effect,
> mandate the creation of some new count of eligible voters would be
> both unprecedented and incredibly destabilizing to the U.S. Census
> and redistricting process.
>
> The contested philosophical arguments occupying most of the
> briefing in this case can be avoided in favor of a simpler
> resolution based on the type of population data available and
> usable for redistricting. Appellants’ interpretation of the
> constitutional requirement of one person, one vote is radical not
> only in its theoretical underpinnings, but also in its
> real, practical implications for the redistricting process. They
> argue that the dataset all states used for redistricting in 2010
> is constitutionally deficient and impermissible. Instead, some
> other data – perhaps the American Community Survey, registered
> voter statistics, or some heretofore nonexistent dataset of
> eligible voters – should be used as the population basis for
> redistricting. None of these datasets, however, have the
> granularity, timeliness, detail, or accuracy comparable to the
> census enumeration.
>
> Appellants’ constitutional argument is predicated on the notion
> that it is possible to draw districts around equal numbers of
> eligible voters. If the Fourteenth Amendment requires that only
> people who can vote should be equally represented, then
> redistricting, under this view, should be based on equal numbers
> of eligible voters and no one else. For most states, that means
> the census enumeration of the total population, plus voting
> eligible military and overseas voters not counted at their voting
> address in the census, minus children, noncitizens, prisoners
> and disenfranchised felons, and those ineligible because of mental
> disability. No state maintains a dataset of eligible voters, as such.
>
> Appellants, therefore, urge this Court to mandate, as a
> constitutional rule, the use of currently available second-best
> alternatives that would not satisfy the rigid legal standard they
> proffer. Estimates of the citizen voting age population (CVAP)
> derived from the yearly American Community Survey (ACS) of
> 2.5 percent of households do not provide current, accurate data at
> the levels of geography (census block level or precinct) where
> most redistricting is conducted. At best, the ACS five-year
> averages give ballpark estimates of previous citizenship rates,
> several years before redistricting is conducted. The ACS could
> also be eliminated by the government at any time, as the House of
> Representatives has voted to do, or fully or partially defunded,
> as has happened twice since its inception.
>
> Registered voter lists invite a different set of problems, and can
> only be used for redistricting if they match up well with more
> reliable population statistics. They are ripe for political
> manipulation and highly variable depending on the temporal
> proximity of the list to a given election. Moreover, at least
> one state does not keep a voter registration list, and
> another dozen allow for Election Day registration, which can lead
> to substantial changes in voter registration data in a short
> period of time.
>
> The one-person, one-vote rule is not broken, and this Court should
> not try to fix it. The collateral damage caused by a rejection of
> the census as the basis for redistricting cannot be easily
> contained. In the end, Appellants not only invite the Court to
> read the Constitution to prohibit what is now the
> near-universal use of census population data for redistrict ing,
> but they also suggest that the Fourteenth Amendment requires
> government collection of data on voter eligibility that heretofore
> has not existed. The Court should reject that invitation.
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76186&title=Probably%20the%20Most%20Important%20Brief%20in%20Evenwel%20Has%20Just%20Been%20Filed&description=>
> Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
> “Judging the Impact of Super PACs”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76184>
>
> Posted onSeptember 25, 2015 7:15 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76184>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Bauer blogs.
> <http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2015/09/judging-impact-super-pacs/>
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76184&title=%E2%80%9CJudging%20the%20Impact%20of%20Super%20PACs%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> 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
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/20150925/b6b0fdbc/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: icon-acrosmall.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 125 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150925/b6b0fdbc/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150925/b6b0fdbc/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 125 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150925/b6b0fdbc/attachment-0001.gif>
View list directory