[EL] ELB News and Commentary 4/27/16
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Wed Apr 27 07:51:55 PDT 2016
“Voting Rights Lose in North Carolina”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82311>
Posted onApril 27, 2016 7:43 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82311>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT editorial.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/27/opinion/voting-rights-lose-in-north-carolina.html>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82311&title=%26%238220%3BVoting%20Rights%20Lose%20in%20North%20Carolina%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>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Judge tosses lawsuit challenging Arizona presidential primary
results” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82309>
Posted onApril 27, 2016 7:41 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82309>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The /Arizona Republic/reports.
<http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/04/26/judge-tosses-lawsuit-challenging-arizona-presidential-primary-results/83561630/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82309&title=%26%238220%3BJudge%20tosses%20lawsuit%20challenging%20Arizona%20presidential%20primary%20results%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“Gifts and politics: Supreme Court hears sides in former Virginia
governor’s case” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82307>
Posted onApril 27, 2016 7:39 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82307>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bob
Barnes<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/gifts-and-politics-supreme-court-to-hear-sides-in-former-virginia-governors-case/2016/04/27/1483fb88-0bf5-11e6-a6b6-2e6de3695b0e_story.html>on
the McDonnell oral argument, happening now.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82307&title=%26%238220%3BGifts%20and%20politics%3A%20Supreme%20Court%20hears%20sides%20in%20former%20Virginia%20governor%E2%80%99s%20case%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inbribery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>,campaign finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Report on de Blasio Election Spending Is Full of Details and Holes”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82305>
Posted onApril 27, 2016 7:37 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82305>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Jim Dwyer
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/27/nyregion/report-on-de-blasio-election-spending-is-full-of-details-and-holes.html?_r=0>for
the NYT:
te Board of Elections,said the de Blasio team
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/23/nyregion/de-blasio-team-violated-campaign-finance-laws-report-says.html>had
committed “willful and flagrant” violations of the laws by using
those committees. She sent it on to the Manhattan district attorney.
Her document is remarkably assiduous in places, and filled with
flagrant, or at least gaping, holes in others.
For instance, Ms. Sugarman managed not to notice that the State
Democratic Committee received $766,000 in 12 days in October 2014,
much of it from organizations and people linked to Mr. de Blasio,
and promptly spent it on a number of the same vendors and on behalf
of the same candidates, according toreports filed
<http://www.elections.ny.gov:8080/plsql_browser/getreports?filer_in=A00188&fyear_in=2014&rep_in=E>with
the elections board. Not a word appears in her report about the
money that passed through that committee. As it happens, that
committee is effectively controlled by the governor, Andrew M.
Cuomo, who nominated her for her job.
Why was the state committee left out of such a meticulous report?
“I don’t comment on confidential memos,” Ms. Sugarman said.
If we are going to criminalize politics, why spare one committee
from the opprobrium heaped on others?
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82305&title=%26%238220%3BReport%20on%20de%20Blasio%20Election%20Spending%20Is%20Full%20of%20Details%20and%20Holes%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,chicanery
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
“Exclusive: Half of Americans think presidential nominating system
‘rigged’ – poll” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82303>
Posted onApril 27, 2016 7:26 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82303>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Reuters:
<http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-primaries-poll-idUSKCN0XO0ZR>
More than half of American voters believe that the system U.S.
political parties use to pick their candidates for the White House
is “rigged” and more than two-thirds want to see the process
changed, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.
The results echo complaints from Republican front-runner Donald
Trump and Democratic challenger Bernie Sanders that the system is
stacked against them in favor of candidates with close ties to their
parties – a critique that has triggered a nationwide debate over
whether the process is fair.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82303&title=%26%238220%3BExclusive%3A%20Half%20of%20Americans%20think%20presidential%20nominating%20system%20%26%238216%3Brigged%26%238217%3B%20%26%238211%3B%20poll%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inpolitical parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,primaries
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
“Shelby County’s Damage Evident in North Carolina Voter ID Decision”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82301>
Posted onApril 27, 2016 7:22 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82301>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Demos blog.
<http://www.demos.org/blog/4/26/16/shelby-countys-damage-evident-north-carolina-voter-id-decision>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82301&title=%26%238220%3BShelby%20County%26%238217%3Bs%20Damage%20Evident%20in%20North%20Carolina%20Voter%20ID%20Decision%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>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Lobbyists are People Too, and They Should Be Free to Contribute to
California Legislative Races” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82299>
Posted onApril 27, 2016 7:11 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82299>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Brian Russ has postedthis draft
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2763756>on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
The question is straightforward: does California’s ban on campaign
contributions from lobbyists violate the First Amendment? The answer
is not straightforward. The purpose of this Comment is to assess the
validity of California’s ban against the changes to campaign finance
law since Chief Justice John Roberts’s appointment to the Court. The
Chief Judge has authored several decisions that diverted the course
of campaign finance law through constitutional interpretations that
will likely overwhelm California’s justifications for the ban.
In 2000, California enacted Government Code § 85702, thereby barring
lobbyists from making contributions to an elected state officer or
candidate for state office if the lobbyist is registered to lobby
the officer’s government agency. In 2001, the only time the question
was litigated, the District Court for the Eastern District of
California found the ban to be constitutional on First Amendment
grounds. The decision was not appealed and remains the only case law
on the ban. At the end of California’s 2015 legislative session, the
state had nearly 1,800 registered lobbyists.
Questioning the vitality of the ban is important because
unrestricted political speech is an indispensable element of
democratic self-governance. If the ban were challenged today, the
outcome may be markedly different. Since Chief Justice John Roberts
joined the Supreme Court in 2005, campaign finance limitations have
been dramatically struck down as unconstitutional. California’s ban
was enacted near the end of the Rehnquist Court, where decisions
like Austin and McConnell averred a broad threat of corporate
influence in elections to uphold restrictions on the political
speech of corporations. However, the Roberts Court overturned parts
of Austin and McConnell in Citizens United and McCutcheon,
downplaying the threat of potential corruption caused by corporate
monies in elections. If litigated today, California’s ban on
lobbyist campaign contributions would likely be held
unconstitutional as an overbroad restriction that neither respects
lobbyists’ personal political interests nor responds to threats of
actual or perceived corruption.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82299&title=%26%238220%3BLobbyists%20are%20People%20Too%2C%20and%20They%20Should%20Be%20Free%20to%20Contribute%20to%20California%20Legislative%20Races%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,lobbying
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
Congrats to Election Law Professor Jamie Raskin
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82296>
Posted onApril 26, 2016 8:04 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82296>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Jamie, who is quite a mensch, is poised to go to Congress, replacing
Chris van Hollen, who has gone on to win the Democratic Senate
nomination for Maryland.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82296&title=Congrats%20to%20Election%20Law%20Professor%20Jamie%20Raskin&description=>
Posted inelection law biz <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>
“Judge extends voting hours at 4 Baltimore sites after complaint
from Rep. Donna Edwards” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82293>
Posted onApril 26, 2016 6:02 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82293>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo:
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/rep-donna-edwards-files-complaint-to-extend-baltimore-voting-hours/2016/04/26/86373736-0bf5-11e6-a6b6-2e6de3695b0e_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_baltimore-polls-810pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory>
Four polling places in Baltimore are staying open an extra hour,
until 9 p.m., due to delays in opening, a judge ruled Tuesday evening.
The Senate campaign of Rep. Donna Edwards filedan emergency
complaint <http://wapo.st/1XVCfpk>against the Board of Elections in
the city of Baltimore, asking for a two-hour extension of voting
across the city. Instead, Circuit Court Judge Althea Handy extended
voting in four precincts where opening delays exceeded 45 minutes.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82293&title=%26%238220%3BJudge%20extends%20voting%20hours%20at%204%20Baltimore%20sites%20after%20complaint%20from%20Rep.%20Donna%20Edwards%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“Is Citizens United a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card for Bob McDonnell?
The U.S. Supreme Court Will Decide”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82291>
Posted onApril 26, 2016 5:58 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82291>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Brendan Fischer:
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/news/blog/citizens-united-get-out-jail-free-card-bob-mcdonnell-us-supreme-court-will-decide>
It is a common refrain that cases like /Citizens United/ allow for
“legalized bribery.”
But few argue that the U.S. Supreme Court has /literally/ legalized
pay–to-play politics; such descriptions are usually shorthand for
the systemic ways that big money in elections has tilted the
political system toward the donor class.
Former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, however, is hoping that
/Citizens United/ did, in fact, legalize bribery.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82291&title=%26%238220%3BIs%20Citizens%20United%20a%20Get-Out-of-Jail-Free%20Card%20for%20Bob%20McDonnell%3F%20The%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20Will%20Decide%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inbribery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>,campaign finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“NC elections law ruling to be appealed”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82289>
Posted onApril 26, 2016 5:57 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82289>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Anne Blythe reports
<http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article74080022.html>for
the News and Observer.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82289&title=%26%238220%3BNC%20elections%20law%20ruling%20to%20be%20appealed%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Federal ruling on N Carolina voting laws bolsters voter ID”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82287>
Posted onApril 26, 2016 5:18 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82287>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Gary Robertson
reports<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a0f19725ada84f27a541863fa04b7570/federal-ruling-n-carolina-election-laws-bolsters-voter-id>for
AP.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82287&title=%26%238220%3BFederal%20ruling%20on%20N%20Carolina%20voting%20laws%20bolsters%20voter%20ID%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“How North Carolina became the epicenter of the voting rights
battle” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82285>
Posted onApril 26, 2016 4:17 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82285>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Sari Horwitz reports
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-north-carolina-became-the-epicenter-of-the-voting-rights-battle/2016/04/26/af05c5a8-0bcb-11e6-8ab8-9ad050f76d7d_story.html>for
WaPo.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82285&title=%26%238220%3BHow%20North%20Carolina%20became%20the%20epicenter%20of%20the%20voting%20rights%20battle%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>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Rep. Corrine Brown appeals to U.S. Supreme Court”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82283>
Posted onApril 26, 2016 3:14 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82283>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
News Service of Florida:
<http://www.news4jax.com/news/politics/rep-corrine-brown-appeals-to-us-supreme-court>
On Monday, the 12-term congresswoman appealed to the nation’s
highest court in an effort to unwind a plan to rotate her district
from a north-south orientation that includes her power bases of
Jacksonville and Orlando to an east-west seat that stretches from
Jacksonville to Gadsden County, carving up Tallahassee along the way.
Given how weak Brown’s claim was, I expect this one to be a summary
affirmance of the lower court.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82283&title=%26%238220%3BRep.%20Corrine%20Brown%20appeals%20to%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
4th Circuit Panel Which Partially Reversed NC Voting Decision in
2014 Likely to Get Case Back on Appeal
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82278>
Posted onApril 26, 2016 3:05 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82278>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
in my earlier post, Breaking and Analysis: Federal District Court
Upholds Restrictive NC Voting Law in 485-Page Opinion
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82224>, I wrote that success on appeal in
the North Carolina case could well turn on which judges on the 4th
Circuit hear the case (and potentially whether the case goes en banc and
later to the Supreme Court).
Readers may remember that the same trial judge who decided yesterday’s
case, Judge Schroeder, was partially reversed in 2014 when he denied a
preliminary injunction sought by plaintiffs in this case to block some
of North Carolina’s voting changes.
A number of readers asked me whether this motions panel would be the
same one to get the appeal, and I asked Steve Klepper of the
excellentMaryland Appellate Blog. <https://mdappblog.com/> Stevepointed
me <https://twitter.com/MDAppeal/status/725080097103949826>to the 4th
Circuit’s internal rules <https://t.co/P3vwdLtoU6>:
The composition of each panel usually changes each day during court
week except on those occasions where only one panel is sitting in a
given geographical location. Every effort is made to assign cases
for oral argument to judges who have had previous involvement with
the case on appeal through random assignment to a preargument motion
or prior appeal in the matter, but there is no guarantee that any of
the judges who have previously been involved with an appeal will be
assigned to a hearing panel.
So it is likely, but not guaranteed, to go to this panel, and that is
good news for the plaintiffs, who had luck getting a partial reversal of
Judge Schroeder before.
Here is what I wrote <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=66138>about that
partial reversal of the preliminary injunction at the time:
*Breaking: 4th Circuit, on 2-1 Vote, Partially Blocks NC Voting
Changes: Analysis*
Posted onOctober 1, 2014 9:38 am
<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=66138>byRick Hasen
<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The 4th Circuit on a 2-1 vote
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/NC-Opinion.pdf>(on a
panel made up of all Democratic appointees) has issued an opinion
requiring North Carolina to restore same day voter registration and
the counting of out of precinct ballots in the upcoming election.
The majority offers a generous but reasonable reading of the scope
of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The main difference with the
dissent is over the question whether making these changes now is
going to cause confusion and impose a burden on election officials
and the state in light of Supreme Court admonitions not to change
election rules so close to the election.
This is a case that North Carolina could take to the 4th Circuit en
banc, although given the press of time I expect they will go right
to the Supreme Court. I would not be surprised to see the Supreme
Court reverse this 4th Circuit panel decision on the same 5-4
conservative/liberal lines that we saw earlier this week in the Ohio
voting case. That would not necessarily mean that the Court would
reject the broad reading of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
offered today by the 4th Circuit. The split could be over the issue,
also present in the 7th Circuit Wisconsin voter id case (which could
head to the Supreme Court today) about the dangers of courts
changing election rules just before the election.
Here is some more detailed analysis:
1. The 2-1 vote of the district court reversed only some of the
challenged voting practices: the elimination of same-day voter
registration and the prohibition on counting out-of-precinct
ballots. It upheld the district court’s denial of a preliminary
injunction to block “(i) the reduction of early-voting days; (ii)
the expansion of allowable voter challengers; (iii) the elimination
of the discretion of county boards of elections to keep the polls
open an additional hour on Election Day in “extraordinary
circumstances”; (iv) the elimination of pre-registration of sixteen-
and seventeen-year-olds who will not be eighteen years old by the
next general election; and (v) the soft roll-out of voter
identification requirements to go into effect in 2016.” It said that
plaintiffs may prevail on these claims later, but did not make
enough of a showing to get a preliminary injunction. The dissenting
judge would have blocked none of these changes before the election.
2.The majority quickly rejects the attempt to restore early voting
in time for this election because of the hardship it says would fall
on the state and election boards in rolling out early voting in just
two weeks. As to the denial of a stop of the “soft roll out” of the
voter id law, the court wrote that “While we share Plaintiffs’
concern that requiring poll workers to implement the soft rollout
without adequate training might result in some confusion, we are
unable to find that the district court committed clear error in
deeming this argument ‘speculative.’”
3. As to the reversal of the district court on same day voting and
out of precinct voting, the appellate court found the trial court
abused its discretion in not granting a preliminary injunction on
these practices, finding them a likely violation of Section 2 of the
Voting Rights Act. (The majority did not reach whether the trial
court was correct in rejecting the plaintiffs’ constitutional
claims, as that was not necessary for decision.} The majority first
explained why vote denial claims should be brought under Section 2:
Everyone in this case agrees that Section 2 has routinely been used
to address vote dilution—which basically allows all voters to ‘sing’
but forces certain groups to do so pianissimo. Vote denial is simply
a more extreme form of the same pernicious violation—those groups
are not simply made to sing quietly; instead their voices are
silenced completely. A fortiori, then, Section 2 must support
vote-denial claims.
The court then adopted a broad “totality of the circumstances” test
for judging a section 2 vote denial claim, something very much like
the trial court and Sixth Circuit adopted in the Ohio early voting
case (now stayed by the Supreme Court, though the stay gets a bare
citation in the opinion). And like the Sixth Circuit opinion, the
4th circuit here holds that NC’s decision to make things harder, a
kind of retrogression, is relevant to the “totality of the
circumstances” test. (This is important because it can explain why a
cutback in a voting practice could violate section 2 of the VRA
while a state which always had a less generous voting practice is
not in violation of section 2.)
4. Looking at the totality of the circumstances, the court concludes
the history of the rollback after /Shelby County/is very relevant here:
Immediately after Shelby County, i.e., literally the next day, when
“history” without the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance requirements
picked up where it left off in 1965, North Carolina rushed to pass
House Bill 589, the “full bill” legislative leadership likely knew
it could not have gotten past federal preclearance in the pre–Shelby
County era. McCrory, 997 F. Supp. 2d at 336. Thus, to whatever
extent the Supreme Court could rightly celebrate voting rights
progress in Shelby County, the post-Shelby County facts on the
ground in North Carolina should have cautioned the district court
against doing so here.
5. Looking at local factors and history, and and undisputed evidence
that the changes in same day registration and provisional balloting
disproportionately fall on minority voters, the 4th circuit majority
concluded there was likely a section 2 Voting Rights Act violation
and the district court abused its discretion in concluding
otherwise. It said that NC’s bureaucratic inefficiencies and
under-resourcing could not justify these rules, even if narrower
voting practices exist elsewhere: “At the end of the day, we cannot
escape the district court’s repeated findings that Plaintiffs
presented undisputed evidence showing that same-day registration and
out-of-precinct voting were enacted to increase voter participation,
that African American voters disproportionately used those electoral
mechanisms, and that House Bill 589 restricted those mechanisms and
thus disproportionately impacts African American voters.”
6. Judge Motz, the dissenting judge offered two basic reasons for
dissenting on the issue of same day voter registration and
provisional balloting. First, the judge found that the trial court’s
decisions that the laws cumulatively would not hurt minority voters
was not clearly erroneous. “The [trial] court rejected as
unpersuasive evidence offered that constricting the early voting
period assertedly would create long lines at the polls, McCrory, 997
F. Supp. 2d at 372, affect black voters disproportionately, id., or
cut down on Sunday voting hours in the upcoming election. Id. at
373. So too with same-day registration: the district court rejected
Appellants’ assertions that eliminating same-day registration would
cause registration rates among black North Carolinians to drop. Id.
at 350. Whatever the wisdom of these factual findings, they are not
clearly erroneous.” The judge said she might have reached a
different decision in reviewing the record, and that the judge
should have looked at the laws cumulatively and not piece by piece.
7. Second, and perhaps more importantly, Judge Motz in dissent said
that the Supreme Court’s /Purcell v. Gonzalez/case means that the
4th Circuit should not be changing election rules so close to the
election. (This is the key issue in the Wisconsin voter id appeal
which could be heading to the Supreme Court at any moment.) The
dissent said that this ruling will change the status quo, when sate
election officials are ill prepared to make these changes, and it is
being done for a duly enacted statute which has not been finally
found to be illegal. The majority’s response is to (a) distinguish
Purcell as a case where the Ninth Circuit provided no reasons and
(b) to argue that these new rules, although risking some voter
confusion, will err on the side on enfranchising voters and thereby
serve as a safety net.
[This post has been updated.]
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82278&title=4th%20Circuit%20Panel%20Which%20Partially%20Reversed%20NC%20Voting%20Decision%20in%202014%20Likely%20to%20Get%20Case%20Back%20on%20Appeal&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Opponents of North Carolina’s Voter ID Law Appeal Ruling”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82276>
Posted onApril 26, 2016 2:56 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82276>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Alan Blinder
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/27/us/north-carolina-voter-id-rules-appeals-court.html>for
the NYT:
The protracted battle over North Carolina’s voting rules moved to a
federal appeals court on Tuesday, one day after a judge upheld the
Republican-backed overhaul and increased the likelihood that the
changes would be in effect for this year’s presidential election.
Opponents of the changes here, which include the introduction of a
voter identification requirement and a shortening of the state’s
early voting period, submitted formal notices of appeals. That
shifts the litigation to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit. Lawyers said they would ask the Fourth Circuit,
which sits in Richmond, Va., to expedite its consideration of the
matter.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82276&title=%26%238220%3BOpponents%20of%20North%20Carolina%E2%80%99s%20Voter%20ID%20Law%20Appeal%20Ruling%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>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Federal District Judge Upholds North Carolina’s Sweeping Voter ID
Law” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82274>
Posted onApril 26, 2016 2:33 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82274>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Pam Fessler
reports<http://www.npr.org/2016/04/26/475773206/federal-district-judge-upholds-north-carolinas-sweeping-voter-id-law>for
NPR.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82274&title=%26%238220%3BFederal%20District%20Judge%20Upholds%20North%20Carolina%26%238217%3Bs%20Sweeping%20Voter%20ID%20Law%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>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“‘Chaos’ In Kansas: ACLU Says Two-Thirds Voter Registrations On
Hold” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82272>
Posted onApril 26, 2016 12:31 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82272>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP:
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/kris-kobach-voter-registration-aclu-lawsuit>
Voting rolls in Kansas are in “chaos” because of the state’s
proof-of-citizenship requirements, the American Civil Liberties
Union has argued in a court document, noting that about two-thirds
of new voter registration applications submitted during a three-week
period in February are on hold.
Kansas is fending off multiple legal challenges from voting rights
activists, and just months before the state’s August primary, the
status of the “dual registration” system remains unclear. Federal
judges in separate voter-registration lawsuits unfolding in Kansas
and Washington, D.C., could rule at any time. There’s also greater
urgency because registrations typically surge during an election year.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82272&title=%26%238220%3B%26%238216%3BChaos%26%238217%3B%20In%20Kansas%3A%20ACLU%20Says%20Two-Thirds%20Voter%20Registrations%20On%20Hold%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“The McDonnell Case: Corruption as ‘Ordinary Politics’”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82270>
Posted onApril 26, 2016 10:30 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82270>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Daniel Weiner
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-i-weiner/bob-mcdonnell-goes-to-the_b_9779140.html>for
HuffPo:
The truth is that McDonnell’s case is not an easy one even for many
committed advocates of political reform. One can wholeheartedly
reject the suggestion that his actions were nothing more than
“ordinary politics” entitled to First Amendment protection, while
still being uneasy about use of the heavy hammer of criminal bribery
laws to police norms of official conduct. Arguably everyone involved
in this case (including the McDonnells) would have been better
served by a system of clear, bright-line limits on both campaign
contributions and personal gifts to elected officials and their
families.
At the end of the day, though, those safeguards only work if the
broader political culture accepts their legitimacy. The public is
clearly troubled by the sort of self-dealing such rules aim to
prevent; too many elites seem to feel differently. One way or
another, this disconnect will have to be addressed if we are to have
any hope of restoring confidence in the integrity of our political
system.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82270&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20McDonnell%20Case%3A%20Corruption%20as%20%E2%80%98Ordinary%20Politics%E2%80%99%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inbribery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>,campaign finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
--
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/20160427/65f43ce8/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/20160427/65f43ce8/attachment.png>
View list directory