[EL] John Doe

Fri Apr 29 13:21:02 PDT 2016

Given that the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled on coordination based upon
both the First Amendment *and* article I, section 3 of the Wisconsin
Constitution (see paragraph 10 of the majority opinion), can SCOTUS reach
the coordination discussion?

State constitutions can still be more protective
<https://www.jstor.org/stable/1340334?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents> of
individual rights, no?

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu>
wrote:

> 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 <%28614%29%20236-6317>*
>
> *bsmith at law.capital.edu <bsmith at law.capital.edu>*
>
> *http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp
> <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?
>
>
>
> [image: 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>
>
> [image: 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.*
>
> [image: 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!!!!
>
> [image: 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.*
>
> [image: 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.
>
> [image: 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>
>
> [image: 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.*
>
> [image: 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.*
>
> [image: 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.*
>
> [image: 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.
>
>
>
> [image: 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>
>
> [image: 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.*
>
> [image: 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.*
>
>
>
> [image: 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.)*
>
> [image: 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.*
>
> [image: 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>.
>
> [image: 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.
>
> [image: 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.
>
> [image: 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.
>
> [image: 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>
>
> [image: 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.”*
>
> [image: 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>.)
>
> [image: 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.
>
> [image: 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
>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-- 
Steve Klein
Attorney*
Pillar of Law Institute
www.pillaroflaw.org

**Licensed to practice law in Illinois and Michigan*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160429/e919dbe0/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160429/e919dbe0/attachment.png>