[EL] John Doe

Smith, Brad BSmith at law.capital.edu
Fri Apr 29 09:15:21 PDT 2016 

My analysis would be that the Wisconsin court got the coordination law right; that this will, if anything, give Kennedy an opportunity to clarify that Caperton does not and cannot mean that if friends of friends are involved in judicial elections, that would be grounds for recusal, and that the case is not a hot potato any more than dozens of other cases that present themselves to the Supreme Court, such as the Texas ID statute on which the court issued an order today.

Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
  Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 East Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 236-6317
bsmith at law.capital.edu<mailto:bsmith at law.capital.edu>
http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 11:11 AM
To: law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 4/29/16

WI John Doe Cert. Petition Raises Substantial Questions, But #SCOTUS May Not Bite<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82420>
Posted on April 29, 2016 8:08 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82420> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

I have posted a copy of the redacted petition for cert<https://www.scribd.com/doc/310939038/John-Doe-Cert-Redacted>. in the John Doe Wisconsin case. Never before have I seen a cert. petition with even parts of the questions presented redacted.  The redactions make it difficult to fully assess the claims, as is the fact that this was not written by Supreme Court specialists—because the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in more than a bit of chutzpah, denied the ability of Reed Smith to work pro bono on this cert petition. (The petition contains a dig at this point: “The state supreme court denied the request, refusing to recognize the right of the district attorneys to be represented by counsel. The court wrote that no need had been shown by the petitioners, whose appellate experience is limited to traffic and misdemeanor matters in the state court of appeals.”)

There are two meaty issues. First, it seems pretty clear to me that the Wisconsin Supreme Court mangled U.S. constitutional campaign finance law to let elected officials like Gov. Scott Walker coordinate with outside groups on an unlimited basis with groups taking unlimited campaign contributions from whatever source so long as the outside groups avoid express words of advocacy like vote for or vote against. The second issue is whether those Justices on the WI Supreme Court who benefitted from the outside spending by the very groups before the court should have recused themselves from hearing the case. The number of redactions involving the actions of controversial state Supreme Court Justice David Prosser are remarkable in and of themselves.

Either of these arguments are substantial enough, and the case important enough nationally, to merit Supreme Court review, although while Justice Scalia was still on the Court I would be very wary of bringing any campaign finance case to the Supreme Court lest the Supreme Court actually move in the direction of even further deregulation, taking a bad ruling and making it national.  Now, with Scalia gone and a potential 4-4 split on these issues, the calculation is uncertain. There could well be a cert denial on the campaign finance question even if, as I said, the WI Supreme Court surely mangled constitutional law.

There is a better shot on the recusal issue. It could well interest Justice Kennedy, who along with the four liberals formed a majority in Caperton, seeing due process limits on judges deciding cases where they benefitted from very large campaign spending on their behalf. Even Chief Justice Roberts, who dissented in Caperton but who has been concerned about the role of judges in fundraising (see his Williams-Yulee decision) could be interested in this case.

But who knows what this 4-4 Court will do with a hot potato such as this case?


[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82420&title=WI%20John%20Doe%20Cert.%20Petition%20Raises%20Substantial%20Questions%2C%20But%20%23SCOTUS%20May%20Not%20Bite&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, judicial elections<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Democrat Chuck Schumer, one-man super PAC”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82418>
Posted on April 29, 2016 7:41 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82418> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Paul Kane for WaPo.<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/chuck-schumer-a-one-man-super-pac-with-26-million-and-counting/2016/04/28/33390ee8-0d70-11e6-a6b6-2e6de3695b0e_story.html>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82418&title=%26%238220%3BDemocrat%20Chuck%20Schumer%2C%20one-man%20super%20PAC%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“The face of American political corruption might be about to change”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82416>
Posted on April 29, 2016 7:40 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82416> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

CS Monitor:<http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2016/0429/The-face-of-American-political-corruption-might-be-about-to-change>

That makes the Supreme Court case, to be decided later this spring, a crucial test: Where, exactly, does the nation’s highest court want to set the bar for what is corruption and what is not?

Comments from the court and experts suggest that many think the pendulum has swung too far toward aggressive prosecutors and needs to be recalibrated. The court appears poised to do that. How far it will go is the question.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82416&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20face%20of%20American%20political%20corruption%20might%20be%20about%20to%20change%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in bribery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Originalist Methodology”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82414>
Posted on April 29, 2016 7:32 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82414> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Larry Solum has posted this draft <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2764466> on SSRN:

This essay sketches an originalist methodology using ideas from legal theory and theoretical linguistics, including the distinctions between interpretation and construction and between semantics and pragmatics. The Essay aims to dispel a number of misconceptions about the methods used by originalists. Among these is the notion that originalists rely on dictionary definitions to determine the communicative content of the constitutional text. Although dictionaries may play some role, the better approach emphasizes primary evidence such as that provided by corpus linguistics. Another misconception is that originalists do not consider context; to the contrary, the investigation of context plays a central role in originalist methodology.

Part I of this Essay articulates a theoretical framework that draws on ideas from contemporary legal theory and linguistics. Part II investigates methods for determining the constitutional text’s semantic content. Part III turns to methods for investigating the role of context in disambiguating and enriching what would otherwise be sparse semantic meaning. The Essay concludes with a short reflection on the future of originalist methodology.

As Larry would say, download it while it’s hot!!!!
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82414&title=%26%238220%3BOriginalist%20Methodology%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in statutory interpretation<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=21>
“Hartford Council Flouts Voters In Keeping Three Registrars”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82412>
Posted on April 29, 2016 7:30 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82412> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Hartford Courtant editorial<http://www.courant.com/opinion/editorials/hc-ed-hartford-council-wont-fix-3-registrar-problem-20160427-story.html>:

Hartford’s city council is flat-out dismissing the will of the voters in refusing to fix the quirky, costly, bumbling, excessive three-registrar problem.

The city council decided Monday against adopting an ordinance that would have authorized the appointment of two registrars — instead of the three the city is now saddled with.

One professional registrar is really all that’s needed. That would save towns and cities like Hartford lots of money and grief. But an archaic state law — a throwback to the patronage politics of yesteryear — stands in the way.

The legislature balked last year at attempts by Secretary of the State Denise Merrill and state Rep. Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, to update that relic of a law and allow the appointment of a single professional registrar in every municipality. So the law continues to require something that no other state does.
State law guarantees each of Connecticut’s 169 municipalities a Democrat and a Republican registrar. And beyond that wasteful mandate, the law also says, confusingly, that candidates with the highest and second highest number of votes win the registrar jobs — even if they’re from an obscure third party.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82412&title=%26%238220%3BHartford%20Council%20Flouts%20Voters%20In%20Keeping%20Three%20Registrars%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
White House Goes “9-9-9” for Garland<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82410>
Posted on April 29, 2016 7:20 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82410> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

At this poin<http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/white-house-makes-new-push-for-garland-222612>t, though, I think things get serious with a Garland nomination only when it is clear Trump will lose and Republicans will lose control of the Senate.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82410&title=White%20House%20Goes%20%26%238220%3B9-9-9%26%238221%3B%20for%20Garland&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Sanders is biggest spender of 2016 so far — generating millions for consultants”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82408>
Posted on April 29, 2016 7:18 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82408> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo reports.<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-is-biggest-spender-of-2016-so-far--generating-millions-for-consultants/2016/04/28/600170ce-0cf2-11e6-a6b6-2e6de3695b0e_story.html>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82408&title=%26%238220%3BSanders%20is%20biggest%20spender%20of%202016%20so%20far%20%E2%80%94%20generating%20millions%20for%20consultants%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“There’s No Such Thing as a Free Rolex”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82406>
Posted on April 29, 2016 7:17 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82406> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Zephyr Teachout NYT oped<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/29/opinion/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-free-rolex.html?ref=opinion&_r=0>:

In its Citizens United ruling, the court gutted campaign finance laws. It acknowledged that American politics faced the threat of gift-givers and donors trying to corrupt the system, but it held that campaign finance laws were the wrong way to deal with that problem; bribery laws were the better path. Now, though, the court seems ready to gut bribery laws, saying that campaign finance laws provide a better approach. But if both campaign finance laws and bribery laws are now regarded as problematic, what’s left?

With the Supreme Court apparently imagining that there is some other, simple-to-enforce bribery law, we citizens are left empty-handed. This is the first case since Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing to directly address what corruption is; the issue is a critical test of the court.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82406&title=%26%238220%3BThere%26%238217%3Bs%20No%20Such%20Thing%20as%20a%20Free%20Rolex%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in bribery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>, campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Money in politics: Finance, regulation and disclosure in CA’s ballot initiative process”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82404>
Posted on April 28, 2016 8:08 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82404> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Looking forward to participating in this KPCC Air Tak event<http://www.scpr.org/events/2016/04/19/1922/money-in-politics/> May 12:

As we look to the November ballot, this is expected to be a record year for citizen initiatives in California with more than a hundred already proposed and filed with the Secretary of State. Enacted in 1911, California’s citizens’ initiative process allows citizens the opportunity to put their own propositions on the state ballot. But is the average voter as well equipped to deal with complex legislation as elected legislators and their full-time staffs?

While direct democracy is the intent, the process of qualifying and passing initiatives in such a large state allows monied interests to wield big clout. Do you think California’s initiative process is controlled more by large industries, labor unions and wealthy individuals than by voters? If so, do you have ideas for reforming the process? Would you ban initiative financing that comes from out-of-state? Do you think citizen initiatives are a waste of time and money and should be scrapped altogether?

Join us on Tuesday, April 19 at KPCC’s Crawford Family Forum as Larry Mantle(AirTalk), Peter Scheer (First Amendment Coalition) and other special guests explore issues related to money in CA’s initiative process.

Moderator:

Larry Mantle, host of AirTalk

Guests:

John Eastman, professor of law and community service at Chapman University

Richard Hasen, Chancellor’s professor of law and political science at University of California, Irvine

Jessica Levinson, professor at Loyola Law School

John Matsusaka, USC Charles F. Sexton chair in American enterprise, professor of finance and business economics, and executive director of Initiative and Referendum Institute

Pete Peterson, interim dean of the School of Public Policy and executive director of the Davenport Institute at Pepperdine University

Peter Scheer, executive director of First Amendment Coalition

This event is a live taping of AirTalk co-presented by the First Amendment Coalition and KPCC.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82404&title=%26%238220%3BMoney%20in%20politics%3A%20Finance%2C%20regulation%20and%20disclosure%20in%20CA%26%238217%3Bs%20ballot%20initiative%20process%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in direct democracy<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>
“Why Mayor de Blasio Is Facing So Many Investigations”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82402>
Posted on April 28, 2016 8:03 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82402> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT reports<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/29/nyregion/the-de-blasio-inquiries-a-recap-and-whats-next.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0>:

What is Mr. de Blasio’s connection to the investigations?

At the heart of each of the five inquiries is money — in most cases, fund-raising linked to the mayor, his election campaign or a nonprofit group connected with him.

Mr. de Blasio, a Democrat elected in 2013, has made no secret of his attempts to raise significant sums to bolster his agenda through that group, the Campaign for One New York, and through an effort in 2014 to wrest control of the State Senate from the Republicans by supporting several Democratic candidates. Donors to the mayor’s political endeavors include major unions and real estate developers, and many of them have business before the city.

It is not clear how direct a role, if any, the mayor played in some of these matters. The inquiries that seem closest to him focus on two issues: theeffort to help Senate Democrats<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/nyregion/inquiry-of-mayor-de-blasio-fund-raising-extends-to-14-state-senate-races.html>, and the relationship he had with Nyclass, an animal-rights group that spent heavily in the 2013 mayoral race against Mr. de Blasio’s chief rival, Christine C. Quinn.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82402&title=%26%238220%3BWhy%20Mayor%20de%20Blasio%20Is%20Facing%20So%20Many%20Investigations%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
President Obama Nominates Kate Marshall as EAC Commissioner<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82396>
Posted on April 28, 2016 4:39 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82396> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Via the Adelson news<http://www.reviewjournal.com/politics/former-nevada-treasure-nominated-federal-election-panel?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter> (with a headline suggesting Marshall<https://ballotpedia.org/Kate_Marshall> is a former Nevada Treasure).

This fills the one vacancy on the troubled commission and replaces the earlier nomination ofMatthew Butler<https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/19/presidential-nominations-and-withdrawal-sent-senate>, which looked quite ill-advised.<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=68518>

Let’s see if there’s any incentive for Sen. McConnell to move this nomination.


[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82396&title=President%20Obama%20Nominates%20Kate%20Marshall%20as%20EAC%20Commissioner&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“NC election law case to get quick review”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82394>
Posted on April 28, 2016 3:40 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82394> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The News and Observer reports.<http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/under-the-dome/article74483507.html>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82394&title=%26%238220%3BNC%20election%20law%20case%20to%20get%20quick%20review%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Dark Money and an I.R.S. Blindfold”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82392>
Posted on April 28, 2016 3:04 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82392> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT editorial:<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/29/opinion/dark-money-and-an-irs-blindfold.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region>

It is plainly illegal for foreigners to contribute to American political campaigns. But reform groups are warning that the ban would be gravely undermined by a little-noticed bill<https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5053> advanced Thursday by Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee.

It would alter the current tax code provision that, while permitting the identity of donors to 501(c) “social welfare” groups to be kept firmly secret from the public, requires that the donors be privately identified to Internal Revenue Service officials responsible for enforcing the law. Politically oriented groups claiming dubious exemptions as “social welfare” nonprofits have proliferated in recent elections, allowing donors — including publicity-shy campaign backers — to work from the shadows.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82392&title=%26%238220%3BDark%20Money%20and%20an%20I.R.S.%20Blindfold%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law and election law<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
Ninth Circuit Grants Rehearing En Banc in Case Involving Tuscon City Council “Hybrid” Election System<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82390>
Posted on April 28, 2016 2:42 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82390> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Order.<http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0416//15-16142>

The panel decision<http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/11/10/15-16142.pdf> featured an opinion by Judge Kozinski and a dissent by Judge Tallman. Judge Kozinski explained the hybrid system in the panel decision:

In some American cities, council seats are filled at large, with the entire city voting for each seat in the primary and general elections. In other cities, council members are nominated and elected by the residents of particular districts. Tucson splits the difference: Since 1930, the city has used a “hybrid system” that combines ward-based primaries with atlarge general elections. The first step in the hybrid system is a partisan primary. Each ward holds its own primary limited to residents of that ward. The winners of the ward primaries advance to the general election, where they compete against the other candidates nominated from that ward. In the general election, all Tucson residents can vote for one council member from each ward that held a primary during the same election cycle. See Charter ch. XVI, § 9. Thus, a resident of Ward 1 can’t vote in the Ward 2 primary, but can vote for one of the Ward 2 candidates in the general election. The parties agree that, 6 PUBLIC INTEGRITY ALLIANCE V. CITY OF TUCSON once elected, council members represent the entire city, not just the ward from which they were nominated. See City of Tucson v. State, 273 P.3d 624, 631 (Ariz. 2012) (“Tucson council members, although nominated by ward, represent the entire city, just as do council members elected at large in other cities.”); see also Dallas Cty. v. Reese, 421 U.S. 477, 480 (1975) (“[E]lected officials represent all of those who elect them . . . .”); Fortson v. Dorsey, 379 U.S. 433, 438 (1965) (similar). Council seats are filled in staggered elections, with three council members elected every other year. Once elected, a council member serves a four-year term. See Charter ch. XVI, §§ 3–4. The council members from Wards 1, 2 and 4 will be elected in 2015, and the council members from Wards 3, 5 and 6 will be elected in 2017. Because only half of the council seats are up for election in any given year, only half of Tucsonans can vote in a primary in each election cycle. And approximately 83 percent of the electorate that votes for any given council seat in the general election has no say in selecting the nominees competing for that seat.


[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82390&title=Ninth%20Circuit%20Grants%20Rehearing%20En%20Banc%20in%20Case%20Involving%20Tuscon%20City%20Council%20%26%238220%3BHybrid%26%238221%3B%20Election%20System&description=>
Posted in voting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
“How Majority Rule Might Have Stopped Donald Trump”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82387>
Posted on April 28, 2016 1:23 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82387> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Eric Maskin and Amartya Sen<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/opinion/sunday/how-majority-rule-might-have-stopped-donald-trump.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region> in NYT Sunday Review:

The Marquis de Condorcet, the great 18th-century political theorist and mathematician, proposed a system for electing candidates who truly command majority support. In this system, a voter has the opportunity torank candidates. For example, her ballot might rank John Kasich, Ted Cruz and Mr. Trump in that order, meaning that she likes Mr. Kasich best, but if he doesn’t win, she would go for Mr. Cruz. She could, alternatively, choose to vote just for Mr. Kasich, which would amount to ranking Mr. Trump and Mr. Cruz in a tie for second. The winner would then be the candidate who, according to the rankings, would defeat each opponent individually in a head-to-head matchup — a real majority winner. (For simplicity, we have described a winner-take-all case; Condorcet’s prescription would also be applicable in primaries where delegates are assigned proportionally.)
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82387&title=%26%238220%3BHow%20Majority%20Rule%20Might%20Have%20Stopped%20Donald%20Trump%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in alternative voting systems<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>
Get Ready for the End to Self-Funding Trump (and the Loss of His Too-Rich-to-Be-Bought Message)<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82384>
Posted on April 28, 2016 12:22 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82384> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Greg Sargent<https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/04/28/trump-presents-himself-as-a-scourge-of-the-elites-that-wont-last/>:

This means Trump will be facing some tough dilemmas very, very soon. The question isn’t just whether Trump himself will take contributions (which, as Manafort says above, hasn’t been decided yet). Another question is whether Trump will signal tacit — or even overt — assent for Super PACs allied with the Republican Party to raise and spend huge money on his behalf.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82384&title=Get%20Ready%20for%20the%20End%20to%20Self-Funding%20Trump%20%28and%20the%20Loss%20of%20His%20Too-Rich-to-Be-Bought%20Message%29&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
How Appealing Mega-Roundup of McDonnell Oral Argument Stories<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82382>
Posted on April 28, 2016 12:03 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82382> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Howard is indispensable<http://howappealing.abovethelaw.com/042816.html#066929>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82382&title=How%20Appealing%20Mega-Roundup%20of%20McDonnell%20Oral%20Argument%20Stories&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“The Kremlin’s Candidate”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82380>
Posted on April 28, 2016 11:50 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82380> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Absolute must-read<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/donald-trump-2016-russia-today-rt-kremlin-media-vladimir-putin-213833> by Michael Crowley in Politico magazine. Wow is Ed Schultz a sellout. And very, very troubling about Trump.

This is why I never do interviews with RT or Al Jazeera.  (Years ago, before I knew what RT was, I did a radio show (I believe Craig Holman was on too) where it was clear that the intention was to make the United States simply look as bad as possible.) No need to help government mouthpieces masquerading as journalists.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82380&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20Kremlin%26%238217%3Bs%20Candidate%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Prosecutors ask U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Doe decision”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82378>
Posted on April 28, 2016 10:54 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82378> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/prosecutors-ask-us-supreme-court-to-overturn-doe-decision-b99715345z1-377458391.html>

Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm on Thursday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a decision by Wisconsin’s high court to shut down an investigation of Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign and conservative groups backing him.

Chisholm and other prosecutors argue Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices David Prosser and Michael Gableman should not have been allowed to hear the case because their campaigns benefited from work by some of the groups being investigated.

They also want the U.S. Supreme Court to review whether the Wisconsin court got it right when it ruled candidates have free speech rights to work closely with advocacy groups during their campaigns, according to sources.

If anyone has a copy of the cert. petition, please pass it along.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82378&title=%26%238220%3BProsecutors%20ask%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20to%20overturn%20Doe%20decision%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, judicial elections<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“The Caucuses and the Right to Vote”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82376>
Posted on April 28, 2016 10:52 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82376> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Lawyers’ Committee<https://lawyerscommittee.org/caucuses-right-vote/> has produced an interactive map of complaints about disenfranchisement in the use of caucuses.

Time to kill the caucuses.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82376&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20Caucuses%20and%20the%20Right%20to%20Vote%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, political parties<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, primaries<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
“Paul Manafort: Trump Hasn’t Ruled Out Taking Money From Big Donors In The General”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82374>
Posted on April 28, 2016 10:49 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82374> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

BuzzFeed reports.<https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/paul-manafort-trump-hasnt-ruled-out-taking-money-from-big-do?utm_term=.hcyorjAGB#.uc84V7PQE>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82374&title=%26%238220%3BPaul%20Manafort%3A%20Trump%20Hasn%E2%80%99t%20Ruled%20Out%20Taking%20Money%20From%20Big%20Donors%20In%20The%20General%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“GAB Director Calls Walker’s Comments On Voter ID Law ‘Disingenuous'”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82372>
Posted on April 28, 2016 10:48 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82372> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Wisconsin Public Radio<http://www.wpr.org/gab-director-calls-walkers-comments-voter-id-law-disingenuous>:

“The fact is, the state had to spend a whole lot of time and money defending the (voter ID) law, and we continue to do so today,” Walker said. “If people were really serious about that, they wouldn’t have allowed the state to use all that money to fight courts and to use that in promoting the system.”

Kevin Kennedy, the board’s director, disputes Walker’s statement. In an interview on Wisconsin Public Radio’s “Central Time,” he said that state residents, particularly students, would benefit from an outreach campaign.

“That’s really a very disingenuous comment,” said Kennedy. “I mean, this was a very politically charged decision in the Legislature. Not everyone supports it. And people were challenging the right. That’s like apples and oranges.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82372&title=%26%238220%3BGAB%20Director%20Calls%20Walker%26%238217%3Bs%20Comments%20On%20Voter%20ID%20Law%20%26%238216%3BDisingenuous%27%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
4th Circuit Expedites North Carolina Voting Case, with Briefing Done June 14<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82370>
Posted on April 28, 2016 9:48 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82370> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Order.<http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/NC_voter_ca4_20160428.pdf>

(Here is my earlier analysis<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82224> of the case, with a look at the prospects on appeal; more here on the panel likely to hear the case<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82278>.)
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82370&title=4th%20Circuit%20Expedites%20North%20Carolina%20Voting%20Case%2C%20with%20Briefing%20Done%20June%2014&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“The Retreat from Voting Rights”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82368>
Posted on April 28, 2016 9:02 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82368> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

William Barber NYT oped<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/opinion/the-retreat-from-voting-rights.html?ref=opinion> on NC decision.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82368&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20Retreat%20from%20Voting%20Rights%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>



--

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<mailto: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/20160429/c594340a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160429/c594340a/attachment.png>

View list directory