[EL] ELB News and Commentary 4/8/16
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Fri Apr 8 08:07:56 PDT 2016
“The Week in Politics: A Bipartisan Approach to Voter Registration
and the Latest Election Results” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81692>
Posted onApril 8, 2016 8:05 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81692>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Governing
<http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-week-politics-voter-registration-wisconsin-primary.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Act-On+Software&utm_content=email&utm_campaign=A%20Bipartisan%20Approach%20to%20Voter%20Registration%20and%20the%20Latest%20Election%20Results&utm_term=KEEP%20READING%20%3E%3E#continued>on
W Va.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81692&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20Week%20in%20Politics%3A%20A%20Bipartisan%20Approach%20to%20Voter%20Registration%20and%20the%20Latest%20Election%20Results%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
Trump Plan to Woo Delegates to Republican Convention
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81690>
Posted onApril 8, 2016 8:04 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81690>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/these-200-people-could-decide-whether-donald-trump-gets-the-gop-nomination/2016/04/07/5c5999e0-fc41-11e5-9140-e61d062438bb_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_swingdelegates-613am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory>:
The three remaining candidates are identifying these delegates,
researching their proclivities and beginning to cajole them. The law
surrounding them is so unclear that Trump could conceivably fly them
to Florida for a weekend of luxuriating at Mar-a-Lago, his
gold-adorned and palm-lined private club — where, naturally, they
could be subjected to personal lobbying to support Trump.
Brookover did not rule out the Trump campaign entertaining delegates
at one of Trump’s properties or paying for their travel costs to
Cleveland. But he added: “You certainly can’t offer anything which
would be considered a bribe. We can’t give them $100,000.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81690&title=Trump%20Plan%20to%20Woo%20Delegates%20to%20Republican%20Convention&description=>
Posted inbribery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Republicans keep admitting that voter ID helps them win, for some
reason” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81688>
Posted onApril 8, 2016 8:02 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81688>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Aaron Blake
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/07/republicans-should-really-stop-admitting-that-voter-id-helps-them-win/>for
The Fix:
When it comes to the other examples, a more charitable read is
basically what Grothman said in 2012: Republicans believe voter ID
combats voter fraud, and voter fraud is more likely to be
perpetrated by Democrats.
That, of course, is highly debatable. And what’s more, saying that
voter ID would do enough to actually help Republicans win states
they otherwise wouldn’t would require it to stop
a/significant/amount of voter fraud — which, again, has never been
documented.
All of which is to say that Grothman and other Republicans can
probably defend their comments accordingly. But they’re doing so on
awfully shaky ground. And any time you hail the passage of a law as
potentially helping your side win elections, you’re basically
begging to be accused of passing it for the wrong reasons. Which is
a really unhelpful thing for Republicans.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81688&title=%26%238220%3BRepublicans%20keep%20admitting%20that%20voter%20ID%20helps%20them%20win%2C%20for%20some%20reason%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted infraudulent fraud squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>,The
Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Cruz fundraiser heard toeing donations rule”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81686>
Posted onApril 8, 2016 8:00 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81686>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/ted-cruz-keet-lewis-super-pac-donations-221656#ixzz45EfXbs2p%C2%A0>:
A fundraiser for Ted Cruz may have broken election law by suggesting
that supporters at an official event give unlimited donations to an
allied super PAC, a recording obtained by POLITICO shows.
“If you hit your max then we have a table for you that is the
unlimited table,” Keet Lewis, a bundler for the campaign and co-host
of a Dec. 30 fundraiser in Dallas, says on the recording provided to
POLITICO. “It can take corporate dollars, it can take partnership
dollars, and that’s the super PAC, Stand for Truth, so pick up some
of that information.”
Campaigns and their agents are not allowed to solicit donations
exceeding federal limits. The Federal Election Commission has said
officials can direct donors to super PACs but only personally
solicit for up to $5,000. Lewis, however, is heard asking for
unlimited and corporate dollars.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81686&title=%26%238220%3BCruz%20fundraiser%20heard%20toeing%20donations%20rule%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Yes, ‘Citizens United’ gives Republicans an electoral edge. Here’s
proof.” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81684>
Posted onApril 8, 2016 7:58 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81684>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Seethis WaPo oped
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-citizens-united-gives-republicans-an-electoral-edge-heres-proof/2016/04/07/c9fe3fa4-fb5c-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html>by Tilman
Klumpp, Hugo M. Mialon and Michael A. William:
Unlike the federal government, some states never restricted
independent political expenditures and were, therefore, unaffected
by the/Citizens United /decision. Other states had restricted such
expenditures and were forced to remove the restrictions after the
ruling. In a study that will be published in a forthcoming issue of
the Journal of Law and Economics, we analyzed data from more than
38,000 state legislative races between 2000 and 2012, in both groups
of states. Our objective was to figure out what impact, if
any,/Citizens United/had on who gets elected to state legislative
office. In states that previously banned corporate and union
expenditures, we found that/Citizens United/shifted the odds of
electoral success detectably and in a clear direction: from
Democratic to Republican candidates.
Many things determine who wins on Election Day, and simple
correlations don’t automatically indicate causal effects. States
that were forced to lift their bans on independent expenditures may
have elected more Republicans in 2010, but this surge could have
been caused by a reaction to the passage of the Affordable Care Act,
the recession or any other issue on voters’ minds at the time. And
while states with independent expenditure bans may have elected more
Democrats before 2010 than did states without such bans, this does
not necessarily have anything to do with how the states regulated
election finance. There are many reasons some states vote
differently from others, including historical, cultural and
demographic differences….
With this approach, we found that the chance of Republican
candidates winning state legislative seats increased by about four
percentage points on average as a result of/Citizens United/, and by
10 or more percentage points in several states. The decision also
made it more difficult to unseat Republican officeholders, cementing
the already strong financial advantage of political incumbents, and
reduced the number of Democratic candidates who ran for office.
Finally, the data provide evidence that/Citizens United/discouraged
ordinary people from making monetary contributions to candidates’
campaigns, an effect feared by critics of the decision early on.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81684&title=%26%238220%3BYes%2C%20%E2%80%98Citizens%20United%E2%80%99%20gives%20Republicans%20an%20electoral%20edge.%20Here%E2%80%99s%20proof.%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Long lines at the polls? There’s an app for that!”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81682>
Posted onApril 7, 2016 9:02 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81682>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
That’s the lead story
<http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly>in this
week’s Electionline Weekly.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81682&title=%26%238220%3BLong%20lines%20at%20the%20polls%3F%20There%E2%80%99s%20an%20app%20for%20that%21%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“Dear Scott Walker: Wisconsin’s Photo ID Law Did Not Work ‘Just
Fine’” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81680>
Posted onApril 7, 2016 6:26 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81680>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Samantha Lachman for HuffPo.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wisconsin-primary-voter-id_us_57056b71e4b0b90ac27115f8>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81680&title=%26%238220%3BDear%20Scott%20Walker%3A%20Wisconsin%E2%80%99s%20Photo%20ID%20Law%20Did%20Not%20Work%20%E2%80%98Just%20Fine%E2%80%99%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>
3-Judge District Court Sets WI Partisan Gerrymandering Claim for
Trial <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81678>
Posted onApril 7, 2016 6:23 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81678>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Back in December <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78439>, I reported how a
new Wisconsin partisan gerrymandering lawsuit survived a motion to
dismiss, calling it a big deal. As I explained:
The state of play in partisan gerrymandering claims is a crazy one:
thanks to the position of Justice Kennedy in the Supreme Court (in
the /Vieth/case and others), partisan gerrymandering claims are
“justiciable” (meaning the courthouse door is open to raising the
claims), but every usual standard that plaintiffs have raised to try
to /prove/a partisan gerrymander has been rejected by Justice
Kennedy. Kennedy’s message in essence is: keep trying to come up
with a judicially manageable standard that separates permissible
from impermissible consideration of party in redistricting. So if
you are a plaintiff bringing such suits, you have to raise something
/different/from what’s already been raised as well as something
which could well attract the votes of five Justices, including
Justice Kennedy.
Plaintiffs in the Wisconsin case have raised a kind of partisan
symmetry argument, one which J. Kennedy did not completely close the
door to in earlier cases. In particular, plaintiffs in this case are
relying on the “efficiency gap” measurement set forth in Nicholas O.
Stephanopoulos & Eric M. McGhee,Partisan Gerrymandering and the
Efficiency Gap
<https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawreview.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/82_2/04%20Stephanopoulos_McGhee_ART.pdf>,
82 U. Chi. L. Rev. 831 (2015).
Well today, a three-judge district court, made up of Democratic and
Republican appointed judges,in a 36-page unanimous opinion
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/sites/default/files/Opinion%20on%20Motion%20for%20Summary%20Judgment.pdf>,
rejected Wisconsin’s attempt to get the case decided in its favor on
summary judgment and instead set the case for a trial in late May.
This would be a big deal even if Justice Scalia were still alive,
because the development of the partisan symmetry/efficiency gap in this
way could be just what Justice Kennedy wants to see. (Who knows? It may
depend upon whether he had wheaties or a croissant for breakfast).
But now there’s this: if Merrick Garland gets confirmed, or a President
Clinton gets a nominee through, it is possible there would be five
Justices to embrace a partisan gerrymandering standard /even without
/Justice Kennedy’s vote.
So add partisan gerrymandering to the list of things up for grabs
potentially in Election 2016.
(Here is aCLC press release
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/news/press-releases/wisconsin-challenge-state-s-redistricting-scheme-can-move-forward-district-court>,
and here is aMilwaukee Journal-Sentinel repor
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/challenge-to-gop-drawn-legislative-maps-headed-to-trial-b99702416z1-374946301.html>t.)
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81678&title=3-Judge%20District%20Court%20Sets%20WI%20Partisan%20Gerrymandering%20Claim%20for%20Trial&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
“Selective Fear of Foreign Influence: Applying FEC Commissioner
Weintraub’s Latest Citizens United Proposal to Unions”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81675>
Posted onApril 7, 2016 10:18 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81675>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Steve Klein blogs.
<https://www.pillaroflaw.org/index.php/blog/entry/selective-fear-of-foreign-influence>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81675&title=%26%238220%3BSelective%20Fear%20of%20Foreign%20Influence%3A%20Applying%20FEC%20Commissioner%20Weintraub%E2%80%99s%20Latest%20Citizens%20United%20Proposal%20to%20Unions%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
Join Trevor Potter and Me May 5 in DC for #PlutocratsUnited Event
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81673>
Posted onApril 7, 2016 10:17 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81673>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
We’ve
rescheduled<https://www.eventbrite.com/e/plutocrats-united-tickets-24300768252>from
our earlier event which was postponed due to the DC Blizzard:
Campaign financing is one of today’s most divisive political issues.
The Left asserts that the electoral process is rife with corruption.
The Right protests that the real aim of campaign limits is to
suppress political activity and protect incumbents. Meanwhile, money
flows freely on both sides.
Join us for a presentation on Richard Hasen’s new book/Plutocrats
United/, in which Hasen argues that both the Left and the Right
avoid the key issue of the new Citizens United era: balancing
political inequality with free speech.
There will be a book signing at the end of the event!
Richard L. Hasen
<http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/> is the
Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at the
University of California, Irvine School of Law. Professor Hasen is a
nationally recognized expert in election law and campaign finance
regulation who writes the indispensable Election Law Blog..
Trevor Potter
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/team/trevor-potter> is the
President of the Campaign Legal Center and was a former Chairman of
the Federal Election Commission. Mr. Potter appeared on “The Colbert
Report” where he served as Stephen Colbert’s campaign finance
attorney and formed the Colbert Super PAC.
/Lunch will be provided at 11:45 to those who RSVP by May 2nd. The
program will begin at 12:00/
/Cosponsored by the ACS DC Lawyer Chapter, the Campaign Legal Center
and UCDC Law /
WHEN Thursday, May 5, 2016 from 12:00 PM to 1:45 PM (EDT) –
WHERE University of California Washington Center – 1608 Rhode Island
Avenue Northwest, Washington, DC 20036
Link to RSVP.
<https://www.eventbrite.com/e/plutocrats-united-tickets-24300768252>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81673&title=Join%20Trevor%20Potter%20and%20Me%20May%205%20in%20DC%20for%20%23PlutocratsUnited%20Event&description=>
Posted incampaign finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Plutocrats United
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“RBG, Originalist” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81671>
Posted onApril 7, 2016 10:13 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81671>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
David Gans: <http://balkin.blogspot.com/2016/04/rbg-originalist.html>
After Justice Antonin Scalia died, many speculated that originalism
would die as well, without one of its most tireless adherents on the
bench. Not if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has anything to say
about it. While Justice Ginsburg is rarely classified as an
originalist, during her tenure on the Court, she has written a
series of brilliant text and history opinions, powerfully making the
case that Constitution’s text and history point in a progressive
direction. Her masterful originalist opinion
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-940_ed9g.pdf>in/Evenwel
v. Abbott/, decided earlier this week, is just the latest example of
progressive originalism in action.
/Evenwel/, a case engineered by conservative activistEd Blum
<https://newrepublic.com/article/124955/next-supreme-court-challenge-equality-americans>,
concerned the question whether states are required under the
Fourteenth Amendment to draw legislative districts composed of
substantially equal numbers of eligible voters. In rejecting this
radical claim, Ginsburg proceeded in originalist fashion: “We begin
with constitutional history.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81671&title=%26%238220%3BRBG%2C%20Originalist%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“What Keeps Election Officials Up At Night? Fear Of Long Lines At
The Polls” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81669>
Posted onApril 7, 2016 9:46 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81669>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Pam Fessler
<http://www.npr.org/2016/04/07/473293026/what-keeps-election-officials-up-at-night-fear-of-long-lines-at-the-polls>for
NPR:
Election officials around the country are nervously planning how to
avoid long lines at the polls this year, after voters waited for
hours at some Wisconsin sites earlier this week. That came after
voters in Maricopa County, Ariz., had to wait up to five hours last
month, in part because the county cut back on the number of polling
sites. Those delays led to raucous protests at the state capital and
a voting rights investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice.
I think most election administrators worry about this, and are
staying awake at night thinking about it.
This year’s unusually large voter turnout in the primaries has
caught a lot of people by surprise, according to Tammy Patrick of
the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
“I think most election administrators worry about this, and are
staying awake at night thinking about it,” she said.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81669&title=%26%238220%3BWhat%20Keeps%20Election%20Officials%20Up%20At%20Night%3F%20Fear%20Of%20Long%20Lines%20At%20The%20Polls%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
--
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/20160408/c272afcb/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/20160408/c272afcb/attachment.png>
View list directory