[EL] John Doe
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Fri Apr 29 13:29:01 PDT 2016
from the brief:
On 4/29/16 1:21 PM, Steve Klein wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <tel:%28614%29%20236-6317>/
>
> /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>
> [mailto: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 onApril 29, 2016 8:08 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82420>by*Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I have posted a copy of theredacted 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 incampaign 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 onApril 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 incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>
>
> “The face of American political corruption might be about to
> change” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82416>
>
> Posted onApril 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 inbribery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>,Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
> “Originalist Methodology” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82414>
>
> Posted onApril 29, 2016 7:32 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82414>by*Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Larry Solum has postedthis
> 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 instatutory interpretation <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=21>
>
>
> “Hartford Council Flouts Voters In Keeping Three Registrars”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82412>
>
> Posted onApril 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 inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
>
>
> White House Goes “9-9-9” for Garland
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82410>
>
> Posted onApril 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 inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
> “Sanders is biggest spender of 2016 so far — generating
> millions for consultants” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82408>
>
> Posted onApril 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 incampaign 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 onApril 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 inbribery <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 onApril 28, 2016 8:08 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82404>by*Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Looking forward to participating inthis 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 indirect democracy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>
>
>
> “Why Mayor de Blasio Is Facing So Many Investigations”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82402>
>
> Posted onApril 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®ion=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 incampaign 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 onApril 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 suggestingMarshall
> <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 lookedquite 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 inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
>
>
> “NC election law case to get quick review”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82394>
>
> Posted onApril 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 inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
> “Dark Money and an I.R.S. Blindfold”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82392>
>
> Posted onApril 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®ion=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 alittle-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 incampaign 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 onApril 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 invoting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
>
>
> “How Majority Rule Might Have Stopped Donald Trump”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82387>
>
> Posted onApril 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®ion=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 to/rank/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 inalternative 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 onApril 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 incampaign 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 onApril 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 inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
> “The Kremlin’s Candidate” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82380>
>
> Posted onApril 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 inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
> “Prosecutors ask U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Doe decision”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82378>
>
> Posted onApril 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 incampaign 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 onApril 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 inelection 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 onApril 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 incampaign 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 onApril 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 inelection 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 onApril 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 ismy earlier analysis
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82224>of the case, with a look at
> the prospects on appeal; more here on the panellikely 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 inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
> “The Retreat from Voting Rights”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82368>
>
> Posted onApril 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 inThe 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 <tel:949.824.3072> - office
>
> 949.824.0495 <tel: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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto: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 <http://www.pillaroflaw.org>
>
> /*Licensed to practice law in Illinois and Michigan/
--
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/20160429/ff8b26cf/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screen Shot 2016-04-29 at 1.28.22 PM.png
Type: image/png
Size: 102000 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160429/ff8b26cf/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160429/ff8b26cf/attachment-0001.png>
View list directory