[EL] ELB News and Commentary 4/18/16
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Mon Apr 18 07:47:34 PDT 2016
“New York Lawyers Flock to Presidential Campaigns”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81990>
Posted onApril 18, 2016 7:44 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81990>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The /NY Law Journal/reports.
<http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/home/id=1202755088361/New-York-Lawyers-Flock-to-Presidential-Campaigns?mcode=1202617075062&curindex=0&slreturn=20160318104400>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81990&title=%26%238220%3BNew%20York%20Lawyers%20Flock%20to%20Presidential%20Campaigns%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection law biz <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>
“More setbacks for Trump, as Cruz outmuscles him — again — in
delegate selection” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81988>
Posted onApril 18, 2016 7:43 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81988>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo:
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/18/more-setbacks-for-trump-as-cruz-out-muscles-him-again-in-delegate-selection/?postshare=641460990331770&tid=ss_tw>
Donald Trump is on the verge of a big win in the New York Republican
primary, but the GOP presidential front-runner had another terrible
weekend in his bid to ensure that supporters show up at the
Republican convention in Cleveland.
Nine more states put the final touches on their delegations to the
July convention and once again, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) schooled
Trump, installing his supporters in positions to ensure that he
could win the nomination if the contest stretches into later rounds.
In most cases, the delegates will be required to vote for Trump on a
first ballot at the convention, but could switch to Cruz if
subsequent ballots are necessary.
Elsewhere, Cruz is already out-muscling Trump in precinct and
county-level meetings being held in states that won’t finalize their
delegations until late next month.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81988&title=%26%238220%3BMore%20setbacks%20for%20Trump%2C%20as%20Cruz%20outmuscles%20him%20%E2%80%94%20again%20%E2%80%94%20in%20delegate%20selection%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inpolitical parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,primaries
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
“Donald Trump Says ‘Rigged’ Convention Should Not Be Met With
Violence” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81986>
Posted onApril 18, 2016 7:41 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81986>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT:
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/17/donald-trump-says-rigged-convention-should-not-be-met-with-violence/?ref=politics>
Donald J. Trump said on Sunday that he hoped the Republican National
Convention “doesn’t involve violence” as he pressed his case that
the system is rigged against him.
“I hope it doesn’t involve violence,” Mr. Trump said at a news
conference on Staten Island, a stronghold of support, after he was
given an award by the New York Veteran Police Association and spoke
at a Lincoln Day brunch for Republicans.”I hope it doesn’t. I’m not
suggesting that.”
He added: “I don’t think it will. But I will say this, it’s a rigged
system, it’s a crooked system.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81986&title=%26%238220%3BDonald%20Trump%20Says%20%E2%80%98Rigged%E2%80%99%20Convention%20Should%20Not%20Be%20Met%20With%20Violence%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inchicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
“Was NYS Redistricting Used to Eliminate a Sheldon Silver Rival?”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81984>
Posted onApril 18, 2016 7:40 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81984>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Jeff Wice blogs.
<https://nyelectionsnews.wordpress.com/2016/04/18/was-nys-redistricting-used-to-eliminate-silver-rival/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81984&title=%26%238220%3BWas%20NYS%20Redistricting%20Used%20to%20Eliminate%20a%20Sheldon%20Silver%20Rival%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
“Bernie Sanders bashes New York election law”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81982>
Posted onApril 18, 2016 7:33 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81982>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
CBS News reports.
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-bashes-new-york-election-law/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81982&title=%26%238220%3BBernie%20Sanders%20bashes%20New%20York%20election%20law%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Manafort vows Trump will protest Missouri, Colorado results”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81980>
Posted onApril 18, 2016 7:32 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81980>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politico reports.
<http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/manafort-trump-delegates-colorado-missouri-222062>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81980&title=%26%238220%3BManafort%20vows%20Trump%20will%20protest%20Missouri%2C%20Colorado%20results%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Why Trump may be costing Democrats millions for their convention”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81978>
Posted onApril 18, 2016 7:25 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81978>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politico:
<http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/democratic-national-convention-donald-trump-221949>
Republicans have been struggling for months in the shadow of Donald
Trump to get corporate sponsors to pony up for their convention. Now
Democratic fundraisers are feeling their pain, too.
Several Fortune 500 companies — including Bank of America, Duke
Energy and Time Warner —are taking a pass on chipping in for the
Democratic convention in Philadelphia or, with just 100 days to go
until the event, won’t say whether they’ll participate. Target,
which has had a presence at both parties’ conventions in the past,
is joining other companies in skipping this summer’s events in
Philadelphia and Cleveland.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81978&title=%26%238220%3BWhy%20Trump%20may%20be%20costing%20Democrats%20millions%20for%20their%20convention%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Voters angry about big money in politics take their complaints to
City Hall” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81976>
Posted onApril 18, 2016 7:23 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81976>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo:
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/voters-angry-about-big-money-in-politics-take-their-complaints-to-city-hall/2016/04/17/e62c0c34-0321-11e6-9d36-33d198ea26c5_story.html>
A backlash against monied interests in politics that has buoyed the
White House bids of Donald Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont
is reverberating far beyond this year’s presidential race. The huge
sums swamping campaigns have prompted voters to appeal to city halls
and state capitols, hoping to curb the influence of wealthy donors
in their communities.
Sunday marked one of the biggest public protests against big money,
drawing thousands to the Mall. But similar, if smaller, efforts have
been playing out across the country on a regular basis.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81976&title=%26%238220%3BVoters%20angry%20about%20big%20money%20in%20politics%20take%20their%20complaints%20to%20City%20Hall%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,social
media and social protests <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=58>
“More than 900 ‘Democracy Spring’ protesters arrested in D.C. – so
far” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81974>
Posted onApril 18, 2016 7:21 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81974>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
USA Today reports.
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/16/hundreds-democracy-spring-protesters-arrested-dc/83123326/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81974&title=%26%238220%3BMore%20than%20900%20%26%238216%3BDemocracy%20Spring%26%238217%3B%20protesters%20arrested%20in%20D.C.%20%26%238211%3B%20so%20far%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,social
media and social protests <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=58>
George Clooney on the Difference Between Him and the Koch Brothers
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81972>
Posted onApril 18, 2016 7:14 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81972>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Very interesting Meet the Press interview
<http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/meet-the-press-24-7/meet-press-april-17-2016-n557266>with
Chuck Todd:
Meet the Press – April 17, 2016
CHUCK TODD:
Let me start with dinner you co-hosted on Friday night, a big
fundraiser. I know that you have plans for later tonight. Do you
look at how much is being raised and, I think the cost of the friday
night dinner $353,000 a couple to be a co-chair, do you look at it
yourself and think, “That’s an obscene amount of money?”
GEORGE CLOONEY:
Yes. I think it’s an obscene amount of money. I think that, you
know, we had some protesters last night when we pulled up in San
Francisco and they’re right to protest. They’re absolutely right. It
is an obscene amount of money. The Sanders campaign when they talk
about it is absolutely right. It’s ridiculous that we should have
this kind of money in politics. I agree completely….
CHUCK TODD:
Do you think people that are coming to your event tonight and went
last night, that they think they’re gonna get extra access to
Hillary Clinton, to a President Clinton?
GEORGE CLOONEY:
No. I actually don’t think that’s true. I think there is a
difference between the Koch brothers and us, you know? The
difference is if I succeed, if we succeed in electing an entire
Congress which would be quite a success but a Senate and a
President, you know, the tax policies that they would enact would
probably cost us a lot more money quite honestly.
The Koch brothers would profit if they get their way and that’s
what, you know, there’s no profit for us in this. You know,
understanding this: Koch brothers have said that they’re gonna spend
$900 million not on the presidency but on the down-ticket, on the
senators and the congressman and the gubernatorial races and local
races. And so our job is to try and counter that in some way.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81972&title=George%20Clooney%20on%20the%20Difference%20Between%20Him%20and%20the%20Koch%20Brothers&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“There’s Nothing to Fear in Fair Elections”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81970>
Posted onApril 18, 2016 7:11 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81970>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Craig Holman WaPo oped.
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/theres-nothing-to-fear-in-fair-elections/2016/04/15/e6b878dc-019a-11e6-9203-7b8670959b88_story.html>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81970&title=%26%238220%3BThere%26%238217%3Bs%20Nothing%20to%20Fear%20in%20Fair%20Elections%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Yes, Corporations Do Have Free Speech Rights”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81968>
Posted onApril 18, 2016 7:09 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81968>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Stephen Carter
<http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-04-15/yes-corporations-do-have-free-speech-rights>for
Bloomberg View.
For my own views on this, see Corporations May Be Progressive, But That
Still Doesn’t Make Them People
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2016/04/05/corporations-may-be-progressive-but-that-still-doesnt-make-them-people/>,
Reuters Opinion, April 6, 2016.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81968&title=%26%238220%3BYes%2C%20Corporations%20Do%20Have%20Free%20Speech%20Rights%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
A Wild Guess on #SCOTUS Special Opinion Monday: Texas Voter ID
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81959>
Posted onApril 17, 2016 12:21 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81959>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Lyle Denniston reported
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/04/a-break-with-custom-on-opinion-release/>at
SCOTUSBlog: “The Supreme Court, altering its usual agenda, will issue
one or more opinions in argued cases on Monday of next week, as well as
on the more normal days of Tuesday and Wednesday, according to the
Court’s telephonic ‘hotline’ announcing its schedule. Ordinarily, when
the Court is hearing argument on Mondays, it releases only orders in new
cases, and withholds opinions until later in those weeks. The new plan
immediately stirred speculation that the Court has found some specific
urgency in a pending case that requires immediate action.” Monday is of
course already a big day at the Court, with the Court hearing a
challenge toPresident Obama’s immigration directive.
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-texas/>
If Monday brings an opinion in an/argued/case, then I’m not sure what it
would be. But is it possible that Monday brings an opinion in the
emergency motion that’s been filed to stop Texas’s voter id law pending
the en banc hearing in the 5th Circuit? It is a longshot, but not out of
the question.
Let me spin this out a bit, knowing this is complete speculation. The
Texas voter id law has been very controversial. The last time an
emergency motion made it to the Court, Justice Ginsburgissued a forceful
dissent <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14a393_08m1.pdf>at
around 5 am on a Saturday morning.I speculated that part of the reason
for the timing was to bring more attention to this issue
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/10/ginsburg_s_dissent_in_texas_voter_id_law_supreme_court_order.html>,
which has divided the Court.
It is quite possible that the emergency motion has divided the Court
4-4, or maybe it divided the Court 5-3 (Justice Breyer did not join
Justice Ginsburg’s dissent last time around). The Court, as it did in
/Purcell v. Gonzalez
<https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/549/1/>/, could treat the
emergency motion for relief like a petition for cert, grant cert, and
issue an opinion. Either a 4-4 split or a denial to Texas could prompt
another Ginsburg dissent. The issue of voter suppression is in the news,
and what better way for Justice Ginsburg to draw more attention to it
than to announce her dissent orally on the day of the big Obama
immigration case? The Court might see some urgency too, with so many
election disputes coming to the Court,to clarify or affirm the Purcell
principle <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2545676>,
or spell out something about the scope of Section 2 of the Voting Rights
Act in new vote denial cases. Maybe this will signal more that the
absence of Justice Scalia really matters in these cases.
I know I see everything through election law-colored glasses. So there
could be a million other pressing things coming out of the Court. But I
thought it worth this speculation, and I’ll likely be proven wrong in 24
hours.
UPDATE: I’ve heard from enough knowledgeable people now that
procedurally this would not come as a 10 am opinion. We still might see
something on ID, but likely not this.
MONDAY morning update: And…it wasnot voter id.
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-6418_2q24.pdf>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81959&title=A%20Wild%20Guess%20on%20%23SCOTUS%20Special%20Opinion%20Monday%3A%20Texas%20Voter%20ID&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Why Americans Can’t Vote” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81957>
Posted onApril 17, 2016 12:00 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81957>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Important NYT editorial
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/opinion/sunday/why-americans-cant-vote.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region>which,
notably, calls out the horrible election rules in New York state:
Arizona’s problem is a good early warning of troubles to come in
deeply flawed voting systems everywhere in the country. Come Tuesday
in New York, untold numbers of primary voters interested in crossing
party lines will discover that it’s too late, that they should have
switched parties by last Oct. 9, a little publicized deadline under
“closed primary” voting procedures that serve to guard the major
parties’ power.
This is but one of many confusions, Common Cause New York, a
government watchdog group, warns. Politicians in Albany scheduled
four separate balloting days this year for state and federal
offices. New York lags behind more electorally advanced states in
its refusal to allow voters the convenience of same-day
registration, early voting and easier absentee balloting. The
Republican ballot names the candidates while the confusing
Democratic ballot asks voters to choose a candidate as well as
delegates pledged to either of the two candidates.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81957&title=%26%238220%3BWhy%20Americans%20Can%26%238217%3Bt%20Vote%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“No sane judge would pass Bernie Sanders’ Supreme Court litmus test”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81955>
Posted onApril 17, 2016 11:57 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81955>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Michael McGough
<http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-bernie-sanders-supreme-court-citizens-united-20160415-story.html>for
LA Times Opinion:
Sanders was asked if he would ask President Obama to withdraw his
nomination of Judge Merrick Garland if Sanders won the election.
Sanders answered yes and added this:
“I think that we need a Supreme Court justice who will make it
crystal clear, and this nominee has not yet done that, crystal clear
that he or she will vote to overturn Citizens United and make sure
that American democracy is not undermined.”
Whoa.
This statement is shocking less because Sanders would be asking a
nominee to behave unethically than for what it shows about Sanders’
understanding of politics.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81955&title=%26%238220%3BNo%20sane%20judge%20would%20pass%20Bernie%20Sanders%26%238217%3B%20Supreme%20Court%20litmus%20test%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Today’s Must Read: LA Times on “American Independent” Voters Who
Will Be Out of Democratic Presidential Primay
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81953>
Posted onApril 17, 2016 11:55 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81953>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
LAT:
<http://static.latimes.com/american-independent-party-california-voters/#nt=oft12aH-1la1>
With nearly half a million registered members, the American
Independent Party is bigger than all of California’s other minor
parties combined. The ultraconservative party’s platform opposes
abortion rights and same sex marriage, and calls for building a
fence along the entire United States border.
Based in the Solano County home of one of its leaders, the AIP bills
itself as “The Fastest Growing Political Party in California.”
But a Times investigation has found that a majority of its members
have registered with the party in error. Nearly three in four people
did not realize they had joined the party,a survey
<http://documents.latimes.com/poll-american-independent-party-members-california/>of
registered AIP voters conducted for The Times found.
That mistake could prevent people from casting votes in the June 7
presidential primary, California’s most competitive in decades.
Voters from all walks of life were confused by the use of the word
“independent” in the party’s name, according to The Times analysis.
Residents of rural and urban communities, students and business
owners and top Hollywood celebrities with known Democratic leanings
— including Sugar Ray Leonard, Demi Moore and Emma Stone — were
among those who believed they were declaring that they preferred no
party affiliation when they checked the box for the American
Independent Party.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81953&title=Today%26%238217%3Bs%20Must%20Read%3A%20LA%20Times%20on%20%26%238220%3BAmerican%20Independent%26%238221%3B%20Voters%20Who%20Will%20Be%20Out%20of%20Democratic%20Presidential%20Primay&description=>
Posted inpolitical parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,third
parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=47>
“Hundreds of New York state voters to file suit calling the closed
primary ‘a threat to our democratic system’ after claiming their
party affiliation mysteriously changed “
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81951>
Posted onApril 17, 2016 11:50 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81951>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYDN
<http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hundreds-ny-voters-file-lawsuit-alleged-voter-fraud-article-1.2603876>:
More than 200 outraged New York voters have joined a lawsuit
claiming the party affiliation on their voter registration changed
without their consent. The voters say they are unfairly being shut
out of Tuesday’s primary.
The suit, to be filed Monday in Brooklyn, calls for New York to be
an open primary state, allowing anyone to vote in primaries
regardless of party affiliation.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81951&title=%26%238220%3BHundreds%20of%20New%20York%20state%20voters%20to%20file%20suit%20calling%20the%20closed%20primary%20%26%238216%3Ba%20threat%20to%20our%20democratic%20system%26%238217%3B%20after%20claiming%20their%20party%20affiliation%20mysteriously%20changed%20%20%26%238220%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Runoffs consume time, money for low turnout”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81949>
Posted onApril 17, 2016 11:43 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81949>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
News<http://www.timesdaily.com/news/runoffs-consume-time-money-for-low-turnout/article_3c7f11aa-f661-5273-85f2-f9a7190bab5f.html>from
Alabama.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81949&title=%26%238220%3BRunoffs%20consume%20time%2C%20money%20for%20low%20turnout%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“G.O.P. Chief Discourages Rule Changes That Seem to Block Donald
Trump” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81946>
Posted onApril 16, 2016 4:44 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81946>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT reports.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/us/politics/gop-chief-discourages-rule-changes-that-seem-to-block-donald-trump.html?ref=politics&_r=0>
Trump’s rhetoric crosses party lines. He’s now accused Ted Cruz of both
voter fraud AND voter disenfranchisement.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81946&title=%26%238220%3BG.O.P.%20Chief%20Discourages%20Rule%20Changes%20That%20Seem%20to%20Block%20Donald%20Trump%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted infraudulent fraud squad
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>,political parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,primaries
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
“FEC’s Petersen Hints Interest in Foreign-Money Rule”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81944>
Posted onApril 16, 2016 4:29 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81944>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bloomberg BNA:
<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=87370163&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0j2m8a5n7&split=0> (update:
also availablehere
<http://www.bna.com/fecs-petersen-hints-n57982069922/>without a paywall)
Republicans on the Federal Election Commission have hinted for the
first time in more than five years that they may be ready to write
new rules governing corporate campaign money in the wake of the
Supreme Court’s pivotal 2010 ruling inCitizens United v. FEC.
Matthew Petersen, the FEC’s Republican chairman, proposed that the
FEC sponsor a forum and call in outside legal experts to receive
advice about how to proceed. The FEC forum is expected to take place
in June.
Petersen’s suggestion responded to a proposal from a Democratic FEC
colleague, Ellen Weintraub, who had urged the commission to begin
writing new rules to prevent corporations from being used to
disguise illegal contributions to super PACs and other political
spending groups (4236 Money & Politics Report, 4/13/16
<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/display/link_res.adp?fedfid=87370163&fname=a0j2f5z8c2&vname=mpebulallissues>).
Weintraub’s proposal focused on a certification process to prevent
corporations from being used to funnel money from foreign nationals
and government contractors into U.S. campaigns. Rather than
rejecting Weintraub’s plan, as FEC Republicans have done with past
Democratic proposals for post-Citizens Unitedregulations, Petersen
indicated he was prepared for a serious examination of possible new
rules.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81944&title=%26%238220%3BFEC%26%238217%3Bs%20Petersen%20Hints%20Interest%20in%20Foreign-Money%20Rule%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,federal
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>
Ted Cruz in Tonight Show Skit Talks Colorado Delegate Victory
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81942>
Posted onApril 16, 2016 4:20 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81942>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
and says <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sU7LmmyQHRc> at 1:30 mark
(mistakenly apparently) that Colorado recently got rid of primaries for
choosing presidential nominee delegates.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81942&title=Ted%20Cruz%20in%20Tonight%20Show%20Skit%20Talks%20Colorado%20Delegate%20Victory&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Cincinnati-inspired bribery law could affect Republican convention”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81940>
Posted onApril 16, 2016 4:17 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81940>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Cincinnati Enquirer
<http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/04/15/cincinnati-inspired-bribery-law-could-affect-republican-convention/83083280/>:
Anyone seeking to sway the votes of delegates at the 2016 Republican
Convention in Cleveland in July will have to navigate a state
anti-bribery law inspired by corruption in Cincinnati more than 140
years ago.
According to Ohio law,it is a felony
<http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3599.01v1>to buy a delegate’s vote. If a
candidate is responsible for the bribery, the candidate must forfeit
the nomination or any office won.
The law could come into play in Cleveland. It increasingly
seems likely that no candidate, not even frontrunner Donald Trump,
will have a majority of delegates when the convention opens on July
18. A contested convention means Trump, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas
and Ohio Governor John Kasich – the three remaining Republican
candidates – will seek to convince delegates to back them amid
multiple rounds of voting.
The bribery law dates back to 1871,according to ABC News
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obscure-ohio-state-law-shake-republican-convention/story?id=38397161>,
which first reported on the obscure provision and its ramifications
for the upcoming Republican convention. The law was updated in 1874
to address bribery at political conventions, spurred by events in
Cincinnati. The city played host to several political conventions in
the years leading up to the legislation, including the 1856
Democratic Party national convention and the 1873-1874 convention
to amend the state constitution.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81940&title=%26%238220%3BCincinnati-inspired%20bribery%20law%20could%20affect%20Republican%20convention%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inbribery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>,chicanery
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>,political parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,primaries
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
“GOP: Require cash for longer vote hours”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81938>
Posted onApril 16, 2016 4:09 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81938>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Cincinnati Enquirer
<http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/04/15/gop-require-cash-longer-vote-hours/83080026/>:
Republican lawmakers want anyone who goes to court to keep polls
open longer on Election Day to hand over enough cash to cover the cost.
Ohio Sen. Bill Seitz is proposing a change in state law that would
require a cash bond, potentially worth thousands of dollars, before
a judge could order polls to stay open past the scheduled closing time.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81938&title=%26%238220%3BGOP%3A%20Require%20cash%20for%20longer%20vote%20hours%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“To Protect Hillary Clinton, Democrats Wage War on Their Own Core
Citizens United Argument” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81936>
Posted onApril 16, 2016 4:07 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81936>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Glenn Greenwald
<https://theintercept.com/2016/04/14/to-protect-clinton-democrats-wage-war-on-their-own-core-citizens-united-argument/>for
The Intercept.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81936&title=%26%238220%3BTo%20Protect%20Hillary%20Clinton%2C%20Democrats%20Wage%20War%20on%20Their%20Own%20Core%20Citizens%20United%20Argument%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Facebook Employees Asked Mark Zuckerberg If They Should Try to Stop
a Donald Trump Presidency” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81934>
Posted onApril 16, 2016 4:04 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81934>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Gizmodo
<http://gizmodo.com/facebook-employees-asked-mark-zuckerberg-if-they-should-1771012990>:
Inside Facebook, the political discussion has been more explicit.
Last month, some Facebook employees used a company poll to ask
Zuckerberg whether the company should try “to help prevent President
Trump in 2017.”
Every week, Facebook employees vote in an internal poll on what they
want to ask Zuckerberg in an upcoming Q&A session. A question from
the March 4 poll was: “What responsibility does Facebook have to
help prevent President Trump in 2017?”…
“Facebook can promote or block any material that it wants,” UCLA law
professor Eugene Volokh told Gizmodo. “Facebook has the same First
Amendment right as the/New York Times/. They can completely block
Trump if they want. They block him or promote him.” But the/New York
Times/isn’t hosting pages likeDonald Trump for President
<https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump4President/>orDonald Trump for
President 2016
<https://www.facebook.com/presidentdonaldtrump16/?ref=br_rs>, the
way Facebook is.
“Facebook can promote or block any material that it wants.”
Most people don’t see Facebook as a media company—an outlet designed
to inform us. It doesn’t look like a newspaper, magazine, or news
website. But if Facebook decides to tamper with its
algorithm—altering what we see—it’s akin to an editor deciding what
to run big with on the front page, or what to take a stand on. The
difference is that readers of traditional media (including the web)
can educate themselves about a media company’s political leanings.
Media outlets often publish op-eds and editorials, and have a
history of how they treat particular stories. Not to mention that
Facebook has the potential to reach vastly, vastly more readers than
any given publication….
*Update:*Facebook says it doesn’t try to influence how people vote
<http://gizmodo.com/facebook-says-it-doesnt-try-to-influence-how-people-vot-1771276946?rev=1460755179651>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81934&title=%26%238220%3BFacebook%20Employees%20Asked%20Mark%20Zuckerberg%20If%20They%20Should%20Try%20to%20Stop%20a%20Donald%20Trump%20Presidency%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,social media and social protests
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=58>
“Is Trump Right About ‘Rigged’ Election?”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81931>
Posted onApril 15, 2016 5:15 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81931>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I have writtenthis
oped<http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/15/opinions/is-trump-right-about-rigged-process-hasen/index.html>for
CNN (my preferred headline was: Donald Trump’s Whining a Teachable
Moment). It begins:
Each year on April Fools’ Day I intersperse some false but plausible
news stories among the real ones on myElection Law Blog
<http://electionlawblog.org/>. Last year, I got a number of
prominent election-law attorneys and activists to believe a false
reportthat a federal court <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=71438>,
relying on the Supreme Court’s controversial campaign finance
decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, held
that the First Amendment protects the right to literally bribe
candidates.
This year, among false posts,was one
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81406>in which I had Donald Trump
declaring that he would not abide by the results of the Electoral
College vote if he was the popular vote winner. The made-up story
had him plotting with his campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to
seize power in the event of a popular vote/electoral vote conflict.
Many people believed the post, and it even made aWashington Post
list
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/04/01/a-comprehensive-updating-and-upsetting-list-of-2016s-april-fools-day-hoaxes/>of
debunked April Fools’ stories that people fell for.
It’s not a surprise.Trump railed against
<http://mashable.com/2012/11/06/trump-reacts-to-election/#eighm.iU5iq3>what
he perceived as the unfairness of the Electoral College when
President Obama won re-election in 2012. And he has consistently
whined about what he perceives as unfairness in the electoral
process. Combine that with his inflammatory rhetoric, and the idea
of a Trump coup is not so crazy….
As a candidate, Trump’s complaints are laughable. If Trump is so
disorganized as a candidate that he can’t even assemble the team to
master the delegate and convention rules, how is he going to manage
to run the massive federal bureaucracy, not to mention to defeat
ISIS or build a multibillion dollar wall between the United States
and Mexico?
But Trump’s grousing serves an important purpose in educating our
democracy. Does it still make sense today to use party delegates and
conventions as mediating entities for choosing presidential
candidates? Or would it be better to have a system in which each
party’s presidential nominee is the person who gets the most votes
of members of the party?
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81931&title=%26%238220%3BIs%20Trump%20Right%20About%20%26%238216%3BRigged%26%238217%3B%20Election%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
--
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/20160418/9e33ac35/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/20160418/9e33ac35/attachment.png>
View list directory