[EL] more news 2/6/16

Rick Hasen rhasen at law.uci.edu
Sat Feb 6 08:04:03 PST 2016 

    North Carolina Will Appeal Racial Gerrymandering Case Involving
    Congressional Districts <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79671>

Posted onFebruary 6, 2016 7:56 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79671>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

See here. 
<http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article58756583.html>

I expect the state’s lawyers are spending the weekend drafting an 
emergency motion to SCOTUS to stay this ruling for the March election, 
given that absentee ballots arealready out. 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79650> I would not at all be surprised to 
see a stay even if, as seems fairly likely, this ruling is ultimately 
affirmed by the Supreme Court for future elections.

And of course, North Carolina could potentially moot this case by 
drawing new districts that are political, but not arguably racial, 
gerrymanders.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79671&title=North%20Carolina%20Will%20Appeal%20Racial%20Gerrymandering%20Case%20Involving%20Congressional%20Districts&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “Who’s funding this pro-Ted Cruz super PAC?”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79669>

Posted onFebruary 6, 2016 7:50 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79669>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Teddy Schleifer 
<http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/06/politics/ted-cruz-super-pac/index.html>for CNN:

    A super PAC spending millions of dollars to bash Ted Cruz’s
    Republican rivals is shielding the names of many of its top donors
    and strategists, accepting and directing donations through a
    particularly high number of hard-to-trace companies, new documents
    reveal.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79669&title=%26%238220%3BWho%26%238217%3Bs%20funding%20this%20pro-Ted%20Cruz%20super%20PAC%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


    Indefensible: WI Supreme Court Won’t Allow Prosecutors to Get
    Outside PRO BONO Help in Case Against WI Supreme Court
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79667>

Posted onFebruary 6, 2016 7:46 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79667>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

So there’s a potential claim that WI Supreme Court justices should have 
recused themselves from deciding the John Doe case, given that they 
themselves benefitted from campaign financing by the same groups in the 
case.  The district attorneys asked for outside help on those cases, 
from an outside law firm specializing in SCOTUS appeals which would work 
pro bono (for free).

And today the Wisconsin Supreme Court, itself the target of the 
appeal,said no 
<http://www.wpr.org/sites/default/files/2013AP2504%20and%202014AP296%20and%202014AP417%20%282-5-16%29.pdf>(over 
Justice Abrahamson’s dissent).

Heck, the Justices won’t even let an outside printing company print 
redacted portions of the John Doe record for the Supreme Court appeal.

This is totally indefensible.

Howard rounds up the stories. 
<http://howappealing.abovethelaw.com/020616.html#065409>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79667&title=Indefensible%3A%20WI%20Supreme%20Court%20Won%26%238217%3Bt%20Allow%20Prosecutors%20to%20Get%20Outside%20PRO%20BONO%20Help%20in%20Case%20Against%20WI%20Supreme%20Court&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,chicanery 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


    “WH response to petition offends campaign finance advocates”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79665>

Posted onFebruary 6, 2016 7:38 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79665>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Hill 
<http://thehill.com/regulation/finance/268433-campaign-finance-reform-advocates-offended-by-wh-response-to-petition>:

    Activists say they are offended by the White House’s response Friday
    to a petition signed by more than 117,000 people demanding that
    federal contractors be required to disclose political spending.

    The petition, generated on the White House We the People petition
    page, called for President Obama to take action now or be remembered
    as the president whose inaction aided the rise of secret money in
    politics. But the White House, which had 60 days to respond, only
    reiterated remarks from the president’s last State of the Union address.

    “We have to reduce the influence of money in our politics, so that a
    handful of families and hidden interests can’t bankroll our
    elections  —  and if our existing approach to campaign finance can’t
    pass muster in the courts, we need to work together to find a real
    solution,” the We the People Team wrote, quoting Obama.
    Rootstrikers, an activist organization fighting money in politics,
    called the response “offensive” and “wholly unsatisfactory.”

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79665&title=%26%238220%3BWH%20response%20to%20petition%20offends%20campaign%20finance%20advocates%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


    “Fact Check: Clinton And Sanders On Campaign Finance”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79663>

Posted onFebruary 6, 2016 7:34 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79663>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Peter Overby reports 
<http://www.npr.org/2016/02/06/465781632/fact-check-clinton-and-sanders-on-campaign-finance?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social>for 
NPR.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79663&title=%26%238220%3BFact%20Check%3A%20Clinton%20And%20Sanders%20On%20Campaign%20Finance%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


    “Ask the Author: Richard L. Hasen” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79661>

Posted onFebruary 6, 2016 7:32 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79661>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Kate Ackley interviewed me forCQ Weekly 
<http://www.cq.com/doc/weeklyreport-4830359?6&search=j8q7isAs>($):

    In his new book, “Plutocrats United: Campaign Money, the Supreme
    Court, and the Distortion of American Elections,” law professor
    Richard L.Hasen of the University of California, Irvine, calls
    President Barack Obama a hypocrite on political money issues and
    suggests controversial remedies, such as outlawing fundraising by
    lobbyists, to quell what he views as out-of-control campaign spending.

    Hasenspoke to CQ’s Kate Ackley. Here’s an edited transcript

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79661&title=%26%238220%3BAsk%20the%20Author%3A%20Richard%20L.%20Hasen%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Plutocrats United 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>


-- 
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/20160206/8d3dc8ea/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160206/8d3dc8ea/attachment.png>

View list directory