[EL] ELB News and Commentary 4/7/16
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Thu Apr 7 07:58:43 PDT 2016
"Politifact Rates “True” Claim that People Struck by Lightning More
Common than Voter Fraud <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81667>
Posted onApril 7, 2016 7:55 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81667>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politifact limits the claim
<http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2016/apr/07/mark-pocan/which-happens-more-people-struck-lightning-or-peop/>to
impersonation voter fraud, and this seems correct.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81667&title=Politifact%20Rates%20%26%238220%3BTrue%26%238221%3B%20Claim%20that%20People%20Struck%20by%20Lightning%20More%20Common%20than%20Voter%20Fraud&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Group wants investigation of Kris Kobach and federal election
official Brian Newby” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81665>
Posted onApril 7, 2016 7:53 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81665>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP
<http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article70459637.html>:
A nonprofit public advocacy group called Wednesday for an
investigation of a top federal elections official in the wake of a
media report about his communications with one of the nation’s
leading advocates of voting restrictions.
Washington, D.C.,-based Allied Progress gave the Associated Press a
letter is said will be sent Thursday to the Inspector General of the
U.S. Election Assistance Commission asking it to look into
communications between that agency’s executive director, Brian
Newby, and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81665&title=%26%238220%3BGroup%20wants%20investigation%20of%20Kris%20Kobach%20and%20federal%20election%20official%20Brian%20Newby%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inchicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>,election
administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,Election Assistance
Commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=34>
A True, Troubling Case of Voter Fraud with Huge Implications
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81663>
Posted onApril 7, 2016 7:50 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81663>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
CBS Denver
<http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/04/05/frontier-airlines-cancels-mascot-contest-due-to-voting-fraud/>:
The mascot contest for FrontierAirlines
<http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/04/05/frontier-airlines-cancels-mascot-contest-due-to-voting-fraud/#>has
been canceled because of suspicious or fraudulent voting activity.
Theairline
<http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/04/05/frontier-airlines-cancels-mascot-contest-due-to-voting-fraud/#>had
launched a contest where passengers could vote to have their choice
of mascot on the tail of one of Frontier’s 19 new planes.
Students
<http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/04/05/frontier-airlines-cancels-mascot-contest-due-to-voting-fraud/#>at
Aspen Crossing Elementary in Aurora were competing against big
schools to try to win the contest. Those students wanted the new
animal to be Marty the Marmot.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81663&title=A%20True%2C%20Troubling%20Case%20of%20Voter%20Fraud%20with%20Huge%20Implications&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“SEC Nominee Vote Postponed as Schumer, Menendez, Merkley, Warren
record ‘No Votes’ Which Echo the Call for Strong Support of
Corporate Spending Disclosure Rule”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81661>
Posted onApril 7, 2016 7:42 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81661>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Release:
*/Statement of Lisa Gilbert, Director of Public Citizen’s Congress
Watch Division/*
/Note: Today, members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs postponed votes on block of banking
nominees based on the two Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
nominees./
//
/During the earlier confirmation hearing, Hester Peirce, a
Republican, and Lisa Fairfax, a Democrat, fielded sharp questions on
corporate political spending. U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.),
began his questions by saying, “a giant hole was ripped in our
democracy by/Citizens United/. It has had a corrosive effect on our
country. The SEC has a role to play.” Also during the hearing, U.S.
Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) spent the
bulk of their time discussing the need for a rule requiring publicly
held corporations to disclose political spending. Sens. Elizabeth
Warren (D-Mass.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) raised the issue as well,
with Warren highlighting the obvious conflict between the nominees’
stated support of the SEC’s mandate – investor protection – and
whether either of them would eventually choose to//ignore the 1.2
million investors/
<https://www.sec.gov/comments/4-637/4-637.shtml>/that have supported
and requested this rule./
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81661&title=%26%238220%3BSEC%20Nominee%20Vote%20Postponed%20as%20Schumer%2C%20Menendez%2C%20Merkley%2C%20Warren%20record%20%E2%80%98No%20Votes%E2%80%99%20Which%20Echo%20the%20Call%20for%20Strong%20Support%20of%20Corporate%20Spending%20Disclosure%20Rule%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Addressing Conservatives and (Mis)Using Social Sciences in the
Debate Over Campaign Finance” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81659>
Posted onApril 7, 2016 7:40 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81659>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Michael Franz book review essay
<http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol51/iss2/12/>in Tulsa Law
Review:
It is this perspective that invites the commentary and analysis in
the three recent books by Robert Post, Timothy Kuhner, and Zephyr
Teachout discussed in this essay. Indeed, these are all brilliant
books that situate the developments as outlined above in the
scholarship, history, and jurisprudence on campaign finance and
offer the reader a perspective from which to advocate for reform. In
that sense, they all seek and achieve a rightful place in the canon
on campaign finance and democratic theory. They were also a joy to
read, all written in beautiful prose and by masters of the questions
at hand. This review will follow two tracks. First, as discussed in
Part I, all three books seek to address—to attack head on, in
fact—conservative critiques of the regulation of campaign finance.
It is important to consider first how these books seek to recast the
debate over regulatory politics in campaign finance as “in response
to” as opposed to “in spite of” conservative pressure. Second, as
Parts II and III explain, all three books address—directly or
indirectly; consciously or unconsciously—the role of evidence in the
debate over money in politics and elections. They each do so with
skill, but not without challenges. All three use evidence to bolster
their argument when relevant; disregard counter-evidence
selectively; and ignore entirely the complexity of empiricism as a
weapon in the question of campaign finance.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81659&title=%26%238220%3BAddressing%20Conservatives%20and%20%28Mis%29Using%20Social%20Sciences%20in%20the%20Debate%20Over%20Campaign%20Finance%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“The conservative gladiator from Kansas behind restrictive voting
laws” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81657>
Posted onApril 7, 2016 7:35 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81657>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Important Sari Horwitz WaPo piece
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-conservative-gladiator-from-kansas-behind-restrictive-voting-laws/2016/04/06/57ad18d2-eaed-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html>on
Kobach:
Kobach, 50, first entered the national spotlight several years ago
when he advised Mitt Romney on the idea of “self-deportation” for
illegal immigrants during the 2012 presidential campaign. A former
chairman of the Kansas Republican Party, Kobach also wrote Arizona’s
strict “show me your papers” immigration law, and he has helped lead
the fight against President Obama’s executive actions on immigration.
Thomas Hicks, chairman of the Election Assistance Commission, is
shown in Silver Spring, Md. (Marvin Joseph/The Washington Post)
But now Kobach is the gladiator in a different battle — a major
figure in a national movement to add more requirements for Americans
to vote or register to vote. Since the Supreme Court struck down in
2013 a key part of the Voting Rights Act, Kobach has been at the
center of many legal skirmishes over voting requirements that have
popped up nationwide.
Sixteen states have made changes that will be in effect for the
first time in a presidential election, many of them requiring photo
identification at the polls. Kobach has gone a step further —
pushing for states to demand proof of citizenship, such as a
passport or a birth certificate, before allowing people to even
register to vote. Election-law experts say the effort could reduce
turnout in November.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81657&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20conservative%20gladiator%20from%20Kansas%20behind%20restrictive%20voting%20laws%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,Election Assistance Commission
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=34>,fraudulent fraud squad
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Introducing the Public Primary” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81655>
Posted onApril 7, 2016 7:32 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81655>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Rob Richie <http://www.fairvote.org/introducing_the_public_primary>:
airVote believes that every vote should matter and be heard in every
public election. The fundamental goal of any primary election system
should be to help foster a /general/ election that will include
meaningful choices, real competition, and fair representation. That
said, a primary election system funded by the taxpayers ideally will
allow voters real choices among an array of candidates, encourage
both positive and inclusive primary campaigns, and elect or advance
winners that are reflective of as many voters as possible.
I wanted to highlight a new proposal: the “ Public Primary.” First
proposed to us last year by Chad Peace of the Independent Voter
Project <http://www.independentvoterproject.org/chadpeace> as an
“all independent primary,” the idea has taken more shape in the
succeeding months. Chad now calls it a Public Primary, as do we. For
FairVote, here’s how we think it should work..
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81655&title=%26%238220%3BIntroducing%20the%20Public%20Primary%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inalternative voting systems
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>,political parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,primaries
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
“One FEC Commissioner’s Answer to Citizens United”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81653>
Posted onApril 7, 2016 7:30 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81653>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bauer:
<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2016/04/one-fec-commissioners-answer-citizens-united/>
FEC Commissioner Weintraub believes that she has hit upona
regulatory maneuverto stop publicly traded corporations from making
independent expenditures, or unlimited contributions to independent
expenditure committees. At a time when newspaper editorialists
carry on with attacks on the Commission as“worse than useless,”
<http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-0331-fec-20160331-story.html>the
Commissioner seems determined to prod the FEC to face the major
“money in politics” issues of the day.<\p>
This is her theory: foreign nationals cannot make contributions or
independent expenditures, which means that the FEC could establish
that no corporation with foreign nationals as shareholders could
engage in this political spending. The rule would not bring about
this result outright: it would require a corporation to “certify”
that it was not making contributions or independent expenditures
with these funds. As a practical matter, corporations with foreign
national shareholders could not risk making the certification and
would forgo this political spending. The Commissioner plans to
direct lawyers to produce proposals that she and her colleagues can
consider in a future rulemaking.
This is an interesting proposal, but it is generally appreciated
that a Commission unable to agree on matters of lesser moment will
not find a majority in favor of this one. But even beyond that, the
proposal is vulnerable to questions about its viability as a
regulatory measure.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81653&title=%26%238220%3BOne%20FEC%20Commissioner%E2%80%99s%20Answer%20to%20Citizens%20United%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,federal
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>
“Is a New Voting Rights Law Needed?”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81651>
Posted onApril 7, 2016 7:28 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81651>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT Letters to the Editor
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/opinion/is-a-new-voting-rights-law-needed.html?_r=1>responding
to Rep. Sensenbrenner oped.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81651&title=%26%238220%3BIs%20a%20New%20Voting%20Rights%20Law%20Needed%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>,VRAA
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=81>
One More Reform Group Amicus Brief Against Gov. McDonnell
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81649>
Posted onApril 7, 2016 7:27 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81649>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
CREW. <http://crew.3cdn.net/78369b84676796d1e3_1um6bhg4e.pdf>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81649&title=One%20More%20Reform%20Group%20Amicus%20Brief%20Against%20Gov.%20McDonnell&description=>
Posted inbribery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“FACT CHECK: More On Hillary Clinton And Fossil Fuel Industry
Contributions” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81647>
Posted onApril 7, 2016 7:26 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81647>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Peter Overby for NPR
<http://www.npr.org/2016/04/06/473261522/fact-check-more-on-hillary-clinton-and-fossil-fuel-industry-contributions>:
*The Claim:*The Clinton team“has received more than $4.5 million
from lobbyists, bundlers, and large donors connected [to] the fossil
fuel industry.”
<http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/>
*The Question:*Is that number accurate?
*The Short Answer:*No, it’s inflated.
*The Long Answer:*We’re talking about $1.2 million, bundled by nine
contract lobbyists with ties to the fossil fuel industry. It’s about
one-quarter of Greenpeace’s overall number.
Just relying on disclosure records, it’s a stretch to assert that
it’s all, or even mostly, fossil fuel money. The real issue is
whether these nine lobbyists represent fossil fuel companies not
just in their work, but in their bundling….
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81647&title=%26%238220%3BFACT%20CHECK%3A%20More%20On%20Hillary%20Clinton%20And%20Fossil%20Fuel%20Industry%20Contributions%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Corporate political activity: Persuasion, coercion and that pesky
First Amendment” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81645>
Posted onApril 7, 2016 7:25 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81645>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Brad Smith
<http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2016/04/06/corporate-political-activity-persuasion-coercion-and-that-pesky-first-amendment/>:
Richard Hasen has a thoughtfulop-ed
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2016/04/05/corporations-may-be-progressive-but-that-still-doesnt-make-them-people/>up
at Reuters, commenting on the apparent disconnect between liberals
who appear to hate corporate participation in politics (/Citizens
United/is terrible) and liberals who like corporate participation in
politics (hey, isn’t it great that corporate America has persuaded
Republican governors in Arkansas, Indiana, and now Georgia to veto
Religious Freedom Restoration Acts), and implying that conservative
cries of “hypocrite” are misguided.
Professor Hasen argues, if I understand him correctly, that there is
no hypocrisy because “corporations before/Citizens United/had an
important role to play in the U.S. political system — and they
continue to play that role. Thoughtful critics of /Citizens
United/don’t contend that corporations should have no political
rights.” Risking expulsion from the progressive movement, he later
adds, “corporations can and should be part of the political
conversation.”
Of course, many on the left/are/hypocrites, or at least very
confused, when it comes to corporate political speech, for exactly
the reasons some conservatives are saying. But Professor Hasen is
surely correct in recognizing that there is another large group of
liberals who have taken a more thoughtful and nuanced view of the
issue, and Professor Hasen sets out to make sure that they are not
dumped in with Move to Amend (“corporations aren’t people”) crowd.
And this is good. It’s good that they exist, and it’s good to avoid
lumping everyone into a single pile.
But while it’s good to make these distinctions, and while it is good
that many liberals do recognize that people retain certain rights
even when associating in the corporate form, and so eschew their
more radical colleagues, I end up a bit baffled by the end game.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81645&title=%26%238220%3BCorporate%20political%20activity%3A%20Persuasion%2C%20coercion%20and%20that%20pesky%20First%20Amendment%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“AG Schimel Defends Wisconsin’s Voter ID Law in Federal Court”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81643>
Posted onApril 7, 2016 7:22 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81643>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Press release.
<https://www.doj.state.wi.us/news-releases/ag-schimel-defends-wisconsin%E2%80%99s-voter-id-law-federal-court>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81643&title=%26%238220%3BAG%20Schimel%20Defends%20Wisconsin%E2%80%99s%20Voter%20ID%20Law%20in%20Federal%20Court%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
“How ‘Citizens United’ is helping Hillary Clinton win the White
House” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81641>
Posted onApril 7, 2016 7:21 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81641>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
CPI
<https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/04/07/19521/how-citizens-united-helping-hillary-clinton-win-white-house>:
Indeed, aCenter for Public Integrity
<http://www.publicintegrity.org/>investigation reveals that
Clinton’s own election efforts are largely immune from her reformist
platform. While Clinton rails against “unaccountable money” that is
“corrupting our political system,” corporations, unions and
nonprofits bankrolled by unknown donors have already poured millions
of dollars into a network of Clinton-boosting political
organizations. That’s on top of the tens of millions an elite club
of Democratic megadonors, including billionaires George Soros and
Haim Saban, have contributed.
Far from denouncing their support, Clinton has embraced it,
personall ywooing
<http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/05/06/hillary-clinton-reaches-out-to-super-pac-donors/>potential
super PAC donors and dispatching former President Bill Clinton and
campaign managerJohn Podesta
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-2016-priorities-usa-25-million-213826>on
similar missions.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81641&title=%26%238220%3BHow%20%E2%80%98Citizens%20United%E2%80%99%20is%20helping%20Hillary%20Clinton%20win%20the%20White%20House%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Supreme Court Vindicates Venerable One (Person/Permanent
Resident/Non-incarcerated Permanent Resident/Citizen/Voter), One
(Vote/Share of Representation/Share of Representative Access/Share
of Constitutent Services/Share of Constitutent Feedback) Rule”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81639>
Posted onApril 7, 2016 7:19 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81639>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Asher Steinberg
<http://narrowestgrounds.blogspot.com/2016/04/supreme-court-vindicates-venerable-one.html>on
/Evenwel./
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81639&title=%26%238220%3BSupreme%20Court%20Vindicates%20Venerable%20One%20%28Person%2FPermanent%20Resident%2FNon-incarcerated%20Permanent%20Resident%2FCitizen%2FVoter%29%2C%20One%20%28Vote%2FShare%20of%20Representation%2FShare%20of%20Representative%20Access%2FShare%20of%20Constitutent%20Services%2FShare%20of%20Constitutent%20Feedback%29%20Rule%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Trevor Potter: Happy Campaign Finance Warrior”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81637>
Posted onApril 7, 2016 7:14 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81637>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Interview
<http://billmoyers.com/story/trevor-potter-happy-campaign-finance-warrior/>at
BillMoyers.com.
*So given all of that, are you going to march?*
*Potter:*Oh, I’m too sedentary a lawyer. I care deeply about all
this, but most of my work is done through legal briefs and
explaining the problems, which is I think how I can make my voice
most effective on all this.
*Do you think these tactics make any sense, the idea of a big march,
civil disobedience, getting arrested?*
As a Republican I think there’s a problem with that plan in this
circumstance. And let’s start with the fact that the famous Civil
Rights marches were effective, I believe, because their numbers were
so huge. People were shocked at the number of people who came. I
don’t know how big the numbers will be for these marches, but it
seems to me unhelpful to have just another march. If you’re going to
have one, it does need to have numbers that really surprise people.
But beyond that, this is an issue that needs bipartisan support.
Civil rights had bipartisan support. You know, if you go back and
look at it, Lyndon Johnson got the Civil Rights Act of ’64 through
Congress with key Republican support. That was not something he
could’ve done on a partisan basis. And I think it’s important for
the legitimacy of reform that it be bipartisan.
The march is largely organized by Democratic and Progressive groups,
and it doesn’t look to me like a good venue for bringing out all the
Republicans, who the polls say are equally unhappy. If this was a
march that was being organized on a bipartisan basis by Republicans
and Democrats and you had let’s say Trump, Sanders and Clinton
leading it–to start with, maybe we’d finally get Senator Cruz to
talk about these issues too, which would be helpful, or Governor
Kasich. But beyond that, I think then you would have a sense that
the march reflected the nation, that those numbers you spoke of, of
80% majorities in both parties wanting to change the system in terms
of money in politics, that it would represent that. What I worry
about is that a march that is organized by and populated by and
spoken to by largely one party — Democrat — causes Republicans to
think, “Well, these aren’t my people. Maybe this shouldn’t be my
issue.” And in a country that’s as polarized as we are, I think it’s
important that whatever is done visibly be bipartisan.
And of course, that’s hard to do when you have a Republican party
whose official position at the moment is essentially against
regulation of money in politics. It celebrates — this is one of the
problems is there’s a real gap between the leadership of the party
in Washington, in Congress, at the Republican National Committee and
where the grassroots are. But that’s what Trump’s campaign is
illustrating. That’s what the polls tell us, that the leadership has
really got a tin ear on this issue, or they’re so desperately trying
to keep the system where they control the super PACs and they get
the big money that they’re unwilling to listen to the party
grassroots on this.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81637&title=%26%238220%3BTrevor%20Potter%3A%20Happy%20Campaign%20Finance%20Warrior%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Quote of the Day: Voter Suppression Dep’t
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81635>
Posted onApril 7, 2016 7:10 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81635>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
“It just really incensed me that they started talking about this
particular bill, and one of the senators got up and said, ‘We really
need to think about the ramifications on certain neighborhoods in
Milwaukee and on our college campuses and what this could do for
us…The phrase ‘voter suppression’ was never used, but it was
certainly clear what was meant.”
Ex-WI GOP Senate staffer Todd Allbaugh, to TPM
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/todd-allbaugh-voter-id-wisconsin-gop>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81635&title=Quote%20of%20the%20Day%3A%20Voter%20Suppression%20Dep%26%238217%3Bt&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
Circular Firing Squad Dept: “Union Effort to Create Super PAC
Stalls” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81633>
Posted onApril 7, 2016 7:08 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81633>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WSJ
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/union-effort-to-create-super-pac-stalls-1459989050>:
A fight among labor unions over who would control a proposed $50
million super PAC has slowed the creation of a unified effort to
boost the chances of labor-friendly Democrats winning the White
House and control of Congress in the November election.
A senior political strategist for unions first laid out the plan in
February before dozens of union presidents and other labor leaders
at the winter meeting in San Diego of the executive council of the
AFL-CIO, the nation’s largest union federation.
But the efforts have been delayed since then, in part over disputes
about who would receive credit for the work done, according to
people familiar with the talks.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81633&title=Circular%20Firing%20Squad%20Dept%3A%20%26%238220%3BUnion%20Effort%20to%20Create%20Super%20PAC%20Stalls%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Senator Warren Stands Up For Disenfranchised Voters in U.S.
Territories After Snub” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81631>
Posted onApril 6, 2016 3:11 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81631>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Neal Weare blogs.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/neil-weare/senator-warren-stands-up-_b_9623318.html>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81631&title=%26%238220%3BSenator%20Warren%20Stands%20Up%20For%20Disenfranchised%20Voters%20in%20U.S.%20Territories%20After%20Snub%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted invoting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
“Money and the First Amendment” Conference at CU Boulder, April
14-16 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81629>
Posted onApril 6, 2016 2:25 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81629>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Details <http://www.colorado.edu/keller/events/conference>
Schedule of Events
<http://www.colorado.edu/keller/events/2016-conference/conference-schedule>
Conference Participants
<http://www.colorado.edu/keller/events/2016-conference/conference-participants>
Jeffrey Rosen is the keynote.
I’ll be doing my fullPlutocrats United presentation
<http://www.amazon.com/Plutocrats-United-Campaign-Distortion-Elections/dp/0300212453/>,
with comments by Corey Brettschneider.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81629&title=%26%238220%3BMoney%20and%20the%20First%20Amendment%26%238221%3B%20Conference%20at%20CU%20Boulder%2C%20April%2014-16&description=>
Posted incampaign finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Plutocrats United
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Reform Groups File #SCOTUS Amicus Briefs Opposing Gov. McDonnell’s
Citizens United Defense for Bribery
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81626>
Posted onApril 6, 2016 2:15 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81626>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
CLC
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/news/press-releases/us-supreme-court-should-reject-former-va-gov-bob-mcdonnell-s-claim-citizens>
Brennan Center
<http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=94333&qid=8654650>
Democracy 21 and Public Citizen
<http://www.democracy21.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/15-474-bsac-Public-Citizen.pdf>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81626&title=Reform%20Groups%20File%20%23SCOTUS%20Amicus%20Briefs%20Opposing%20Gov.%20McDonnell%26%238217%3Bs%20Citizens%20United%20Defense%20for%20Bribery&description=>
Posted inbribery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>,campaign finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,chicanery
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Caucusing with a Disability” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81624>
Posted onApril 6, 2016 2:13 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81624>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Rabia Belt
<https://law.stanford.edu/2016/04/05/caucusing-with-a-disability/>:
While America is preoccupied with choosing its next president, a
large group is being left behind in the decision-making process.
Caucuses are not only places where we decide who will represent our
nation, but also sites where we decide who is a member of our
political community. Accessibility measures in the caucus process
would shore up democratic legitimacy, reduce stigma, and ensure full
democratic participation for one of the country’s largest minority
groups. If we cannot accommodate everyone, it may instead be time to
ask whether the benefits of this system are worth the costs to
inclusive participation, or whether caucuses should be abandoned
altogether.
Have I mentioned we should KILL the caucuses?
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81624&title=%26%238220%3BCaucusing%20with%20a%20Disability%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,voters with disabilities
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=71>
“Jury is still out on voter ID after first big test”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81619>
Posted onApril 6, 2016 12:47 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81619>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/jury-is-still-out-on-voter-id-after-first-big-test-b99701512z1-374789941.html>
The state’s first major test of its voter ID law arrived with
historic turnout and scattered long lines, prompting Republicans to
dismiss claims it suppresses the vote and Democrats to maintain it
played at least a role in some delays.
U.S. Rep. Glenn Grothman also said Tuesday that he thought the law
would help Republicans win the presidential election in Wisconsin
for the first time in 32 years, and a former legislative aide said
he would quit the Republican Party over the voter ID law, calling it
the “last straw.”
In general, voting went smoothly, but there were lines of an hour or
more in a few locations statewide, especially near college campuses
such as Marquette University and the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay.
In most cases, the delays at the polls had more to do with the
historic number of voters who showed up and less to do with the
photo ID law.
Of course, even if relatively few voters were disenfranchised (and I
believe that it is more than a few, which would not show up in a look at
long lines), it is wrong to disenfranchise peoplefor no good reason
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2743946>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81619&title=%26%238220%3BJury%20is%20still%20out%20on%20voter%20ID%20after%20first%20big%20test%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
WI Republican Legislators Were “Giddy” About Suppressing Minority
and Student Votes <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81614>
Posted onApril 6, 2016 12:34 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81614>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Via Ari Berman
<https://twitter.com/AriBerman/status/717796473476407297>comesthis
Facebook post <https://t.co/qN2WuomSA5>from Todd Albaugh, the former
Chief of Staff to a Wisconsin state senator:
Todd Allbaugh
<https://www.facebook.com/people/Todd-Allbaugh/100010383187417?fref=nf>
Yesterday at 9:19am
<https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=221323231557115&id=100010383187417>·
You wanna know why I left the Republican Party as it exists today?
Here it is; this was the last straw: I was in the closed Senate
Republican Caucus when the final round of multiple Voter ID bills
were being discussed. A handful of the GOP Senators were giddy about
the ramifications and literally singled out the prospects of
suppressing minority and college voters. Think about that for a
minute. Elected officials planning and happy to help deny a fellow
American’s constitutional right to vote in order to increase their
own chances to hang onto power. A vigorous debate on the ideas
wasn’t good enough. Inspiring the electorate and relying on their
agenda being better to get people to vote for them wasn’t good
enough. No, they had to take the coward’s way out and come up with a
plan to suppress the vote under the guise of ‘voter fraud.’ The
truth? There was almost none. Oh wait, GOP Speaker Voss’ estranged
wife voted twice in both Idaho and WI, and a GOP staffer was caught
voting twice. But it was good rhetoric. Yesterday, one of my
employees, born in California went to get his WI ID. He was told he
couldn’t use his CA ID to get a WI ID without his birth certificate
which is back in CA. The result? He’s not able to vote today. Here’s
a young man in his early 20’s, who is taking part and interested in
voting for the first time in his life. He was excited to go to the
polls. What kind of a state, a legislature, a political party is it
that denies this young man his right? The GOP was born out of
greater opportunity and equality. Wisconsin, yes the Wisconsin
Republican Party, under the leadership of Republican Governor Robert
M. ‘Fighting Bob’ La Follette lead the country in creating greater
voting access to its citizens. The WI GOP was seen as a shining
example of equality. THAT was the party I joined in the 80’s and
fought for. That party no longer exists. I don’t belong to any party
now. I don’t think the Dems have all the answers either. But my God,
to watch a party I once fought for deny a young man his voting
rights…it boils my blood, leaves a pit in my stomach. It’s time for
a#GOPImplosion
<https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/gopimplosion?source=feed_text&story_id=221323231557115>
Update
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/jury-is-still-out-on-voter-id-after-first-big-test-b99701512z1-374789941.html>.
Via MJS:
His comments came the same day a former legislative aide said he
quit the Republican Party in 2011 because of comments GOP senators
made in a closed meeting about why they wanted a voter ID law.
“I was in the closed Senate Republican Caucus when the final round
of multiple voter ID bills were being discussed. A handful of the
GOP Senators were giddy about the ramifications and literally
singled out the prospects of suppressing minority and college
voters. Think about that for a minute. Elected officials planning
and happy to help deny a fellow American’s constitutional right to
vote in order to increase their own chances to hang onto power,”
Todd Allbaugh wrote in a Facebook post Tuesday.
Allbaugh worked for former Sen. Dale Schultz, a moderate Republican
from Richland Center who clashed with his GOP colleagues on some
issues. Schultz retired in 2015.
Schultz voted for the photo ID law, butlater became skeptical of the
measure
<http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/writers/jack_craver/dale-schultz-i-am-not-willing-to-defend-them-anymore/article_7c3598f2-ae16-11e3-8097-0019bb2963f4.html>and
criticized a GOP move to limit early voting hours.
He declined Wednesday to say what his former colleagues had said
behind closed doors about why they wanted to pass the voter ID law,
but praised Allbaugh as someone who is trustworthy.
“His honesty and integrity are beyond reproach,” Schultz said. “And
he’s a guy who was always very proud to be a Republican.”
Screen Shot 2016-04-06 at 12.37.02 PM
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2016-04-06-at-12.37.02-PM.png>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81614&title=WI%20Republican%20Legislators%20Were%20%26%238220%3BGiddy%26%238221%3B%20About%20Suppressing%20Minority%20and%20Student%20Votes&description=>
Posted inThe Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
Caperton Coda: Blankenship Gets a Year in Jail for Mining Disaster
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81612>
Posted onApril 6, 2016 9:34 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81612>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/us/donald-blankenship-sentenced-to-a-year-in-prison-in-mine-safety-case.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur>:
The sentencing, in Federal District Court here, came six years and
one day after an explosion tore through Massey’sUpper Big Branch
mine <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/us/10westvirginia.html>,
killing 29 people. Although Mr. Blankenship was not accused of
direct responsibility for the accident, the deadliest in American
coal mining in about 40 years, the disaster prompted the federal
inquiry that led to Mr. Blankenship’s indictment.
In addition to the year in jail, Mr. Blankenship was fined $250,000
and is subject to a year of supervised release.
“My main point is wanting to express sorrow to the families and
everyone for what happened,” Mr. Blankenship said in court before
the sentencing. But he added later: “I am not guilty of a crime.”
TheJustice Department had urged
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/us/uppper-big-branch-mine-donald-blankenship-sentencing.html>Judge
Irene C. Berger, the daughter of a coal miner, to sentence Mr.
Blankenship to a year in prison, the maximum penalty. Mr.
Blankenship’s defense lawyers, who are planning an appeal,
recommended that he be fined and placed on probation.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81612&title=Caperton%20Coda%3A%20Blankenship%20Gets%20a%20Year%20in%20Jail%20for%20Mining%20Disaster&description=>
Posted inchicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
“Lawsuit alleges Ohio illegally purging voter rolls”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81610>
Posted onApril 6, 2016 9:07 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81610>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
MSNBC
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/lawsuit-alleges-ohio-illegally-purging-voter-rolls>:
The most important state in this year’s presidential election is
illegally removing thousands of voters from the rolls, a new voting
rights lawsuit alleges.
Ohio currently cancels the registration of people who don’t vote in
three successive federal elections, or any of the intervening local
elections — a procedure known as the Supplemental Process. That’s
led to the removal of 2 million voters over the last five years.
Last year, around 40,000 people were removed from the rolls of
Ohio’s largest county, Cuyahoga, a Democratic stronghold.
“We have spoken to purged voters from around the state of Ohio who
tried to vote in the November 2015 local election and were turned
away,” said Freda Levenson, legal director for the ACLU of Ohio, in
a statement. “The already widespread disenfranchisement that has
resulted from this process is likely to be much worse in a
presidential election year.”
The lawsuit, filed by the ACLU of Ohio and Demos, a voting rights
organization, on behalf of two Ohio-based community groups, claims
that the practice violates the National Voter Registration Act,
known as Motor Voter. Motor Voter requires that, once registered,
states must keep voters registered as long as they’re eligible. The
suit also says Ohio’s use of the Supplemental Process is
unnecessary, because the state also uses change-of-address data
provided by the Postal Service to remove voters who move.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81610&title=%26%238220%3BLawsuit%20alleges%20Ohio%20illegally%20purging%20voter%20rolls%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,NVRA (motor voter)
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Wisconsin’s Voter ID Law Caused Major Problems at the Polls Last
Night” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81608>
Posted onApril 6, 2016 8:41 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81608>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ari Berman writes
<http://www.thenation.com/article/wisconsins-voter-id-law-caused-major-problems-at-the-polls-last-night/>for
The Nation.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81608&title=%26%238220%3BWisconsin%E2%80%99s%20Voter%20ID%20Law%20Caused%20Major%20Problems%20at%20the%20Polls%20Last%20Night%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
Congrats to Guggenheim Winner Sasha Natapoff
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81606>
Posted onApril 6, 2016 8:39 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81606>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
My brilliant friend
<http://www.lls.edu/aboutus/facultyadministration/faculty/facultylistl-r/natapoffalexandra/>who
teaches at Loyola Law has just beenawarded a Guggenheim.
<http://www.gf.org/fellows/all-fellows/alexandra-natapoff/> Her work on
the U.S. criminal justice system is important and troubling. Kudos!
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81606&title=Congrats%20to%20Guggenheim%20Winner%20Sasha%20Natapoff&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
--
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/20160407/d5eb6663/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/20160407/d5eb6663/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: icon1.png
Type: image/png
Size: 239 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160407/d5eb6663/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screen-Shot-2016-04-06-at-12.37.02-PM-286x300.png
Type: image/png
Size: 122687 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160407/d5eb6663/attachment-0002.png>
View list directory