[EL] ELB News and Commentary 2/8/16
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Mon Feb 8 07:34:22 PST 2016
“The Many Ills of Campaign Money” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79697>
Posted onFebruary 8, 2016 7:32 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79697>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Paul Sherman and othersrespond
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/opinion/the-many-ills-of-campaign-money.html?ref=opinion>in
the NYT LTE to Richard Painter’srecent oped
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/opinion/the-conservative-case-forcampaign-finance-reform.html> making
the conservative case for campaign finance reform.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79697&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20Many%20Ills%20of%20Campaign%20Money%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
Today: Webcast @UCILaw of #PlutocratsUnited Talk with Chemerinsky
Commentary <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79695>
Posted onFebruary 8, 2016 7:27 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79695>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here’sthe livestream
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9US-LdVgQc>forthis even
<http://www.law.uci.edu/events/election-law/plutocrats-united-2016feb.html>t
at 4 pm today.
I’ll be tlking about my new book,Plutocrats United
<http://www.amazon.com/Plutocrats-United-Campaign-Distortion-Elections/dp/0300212453/>,
with commentary from UCI Law dean Erwin Chemerinsky.
Tune in!
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79695&title=Today%3A%20Webcast%20%40UCILaw%20of%20%23PlutocratsUnited%20Talk%20with%20Chemerinsky%20Commentary&description=>
Posted incampaign finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Plutocrats United
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>
“The POLITICO 100: Billionaires dominate 2016”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79693>
Posted onFebruary 8, 2016 7:18 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79693>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/100-billionaires-2016-campaign-finance-218862>:
The 100 biggest donors of 2016 cycle have spent $195 million trying
to influence the presidential election ― more than the $155 million
spent by the 2 million smallest donors combined — according to a
POLITICO analysis of campaign finance data.
The analysis found that the leading beneficiaries of checks from the
top 100 donors were Jeb Bush’s floundering campaign for the GOP
nomination (a supportive super PAC received $49 million from donors
on the list), Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton (super PACs
dedicated to her raised $38 million from top 100 donors) and Ted
Cruz’s insurgent GOP campaign ($37 million).
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79693&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20POLITICO%20100%3A%20Billionaires%20dominate%202016%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Why Bernie Sanders Needs to Talk About Voting Rights”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79691>
Posted onFebruary 8, 2016 7:16 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79691>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Jamil Smith writes
<https://newrepublic.com/article/129320/bernie-sanders-needs-talk-voting-rights>for
TNR
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79691&title=%26%238220%3BWhy%20Bernie%20Sanders%20Needs%20to%20Talk%20About%20Voting%20Rights%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,Voting Rights
Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Candidates win when they challenge big money’s role”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79689>
Posted onFebruary 8, 2016 7:16 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79689>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Donna Brazile commentary
<http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/07/opinions/candidates-win-by-taking-on-big-money-brazile/>for
CNN.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79689&title=%26%238220%3BCandidates%20win%20when%20they%20challenge%20big%20money%26%238217%3Bs%20role%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Symposium on the Law of Democracy – Stanford Law Review”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79687>
Posted onFebruary 8, 2016 7:13 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79687>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Sam Wang summarizes and
reflects<http://election.princeton.edu/2016/02/07/symposium-on-the-law-of-democracy-at-stanford/>on
this weekend’s great Stanford symposium (which was much more interesting
than both the nearby Super Bowl and this year’s commercials).
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79687&title=%26%238220%3BSymposium%20on%20the%20Law%20of%20Democracy%20%E2%80%93%20Stanford%20Law%20Review%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inpedagogy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=23>
“Bradley A. Smith commentary: Obama should not violate deal with
Congress” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79685>
Posted onFebruary 8, 2016 7:09 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79685>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Columbus Dispatch oped
<http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2016/02/07/1-obama-should-not-violate-deal-with-congress.html>:
President Obama has indicated that he is considering issuing an
executive order requiring companies who have contracted with the
federal government to disclose their giving to trade associations,
nonprofits and other organizations that participate in the political
process. Succumbing to pressure from liberal Democrats and activist
groups favoring greater regulation of political speech, the
president appears to have settled on this order as — in the words of
his chief of staff — one of his “audacious executive actions” that
are not “subject to undoing through [Congress] or otherwise.”
Such an action would be bad policy. But equally as important, the
order would directly contravene the Omnibus spending bill that the
President signed into law just last month. More than simply bad
policy, it is bad government.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79685&title=%26%238220%3BBradley%20A.%20Smith%20commentary%3A%20Obama%20should%20not%20violate%20deal%20with%20Congress%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“For Sanders, campaign finance purity not always possible”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79683>
Posted onFebruary 7, 2016 3:08 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79683>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
MSNBC
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sanders-campaign-finance-purity-not-always-possible>:
A lavish Martha’s Vineyard Democratic fundraiser that Bernie Sanders
attended in 2007 featured lobbyists for many of the industries he
now rails against on the presidential campaign trail, according to a
guest list obtained by MSNBC.
The Vermont senator’s appearance at the event underscores the
challenge Sanders faces in trying to address criticism that he has
both not done enough to help fellow Democrats and that he’s fallen
short of the very high bar for campaign finance purity he’s set for
himself. Helping Democrats often means collecting checks from
wealthy donors and industry executives, whom he has made the enemy
of the “political revolution” he hopes to spark.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79683&title=%26%238220%3BFor%20Sanders%2C%20campaign%20finance%20purity%20not%20always%20possible%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“De Facto Class Actions? Injunctive Relief in Election Law, Voting
Rights, and Other Constitutional Cases”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79681>
Posted onFebruary 7, 2016 12:36 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79681>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Michael Morley has postedthis draft
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2728724>on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
When a court holds that a legal provision is unconstitutional;
inconsistent with, or preempted by, federal law; or invalid under an
agency’s organic statute or a framework statute such as the
Administrative Procedures Act, the court must decide whether to
grant injunctive relief and, if so, how broad that relief should be.
In particular, the court must decide whether to issue a
Plaintiff-Oriented Injunction or a Defendant-Oriented Injunction. A
Plaintiff-Oriented Injunction bars the government defendants from
enforcing the challenged provision only against the plaintiffs in
the case or affected members of plaintiff organizations. A
Defendant-Oriented Injunction, in contrast, completely bars the
government defendant from enforcing the challenged provision against
anyone in the state or nation.
Many courts tend to award Defendant-Oriented Injunctions in election
law and voting rights cases, even when they are not brought as class
actions, without recognizing or addressing most of the pertinent
issues that choice implicates. Individual plaintiffs typically lack
Article III standing to seek relief protecting the rights of third
parties not before the court. And such third parties may neither
fall within the court’s personal jurisdiction nor wish to challenge
the provision at issue. Defendant-Oriented Injunctions in non-class
cases also raise asymmetric preclusion concerns, undermine the
policy considerations underlying Rule 23, and allow trial courts to
enforce their rulings beyond the geographic limits of their
jurisdiction.
This Article presents a new framework for determining the proper
scope of injunctive relief in election law, voting rights, and other
constitutional cases. First the court should assess whether granting
the requested relief solely to the individual plaintiffs would
create unconstitutional disparities concerning fundamental rights in
violation of Equal Protection principles, although this seldom, if
ever, should be the case. Second, after confirming that limiting
relief solely to the individual plaintiffs would be constitutional,
the court should then determine whether such a Plaintiff-Oriented
Injunction would be proper under the challenged statute or
regulation itself by applying traditional severability principles.
If the challenged provision can be applied coherently, and the
entity that enacted the provision still would have intended for it
to be enforced, even with the plaintiffs excluded from its scope,
then a Plaintiff-Oriented Injunction would be the proper remedy.
Otherwise, a Defendant-Oriented Injunction is required.
This Article further contends that, when plaintiffs file a non-class
case seeking to enjoin a legal provision, the court should determine
at the outset whether a Plaintiff- or Defendant-Oriented Injunction
would be necessary if the plaintiffs prevail. If a
Defendant-Oriented Injunction would be required, the court should
order that the case proceed as a Rule 23(b)(2) class action so that
all rightholders who stand to benefit from a favorable ruling are
included as class members. Conducting such an analysis at the outset
of the case eliminates most of the concerns implicated by
Defendant-Oriented Injunctions.
Looking forward to reading this!
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79681&title=%26%238220%3BDe%20Facto%20Class%20Actions%3F%20Injunctive%20Relief%20in%20Election%20Law%2C%20Voting%20Rights%2C%20and%20Other%20Constitutional%20Cases%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Uproar could lead to revamping Democratic caucuses”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79679>
Posted onFebruary 7, 2016 12:22 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79679>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Des Moines Register
<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/06/uproar-could-lead-revamping-democratic-caucuses/79910420/>:
After a whisper-thin count left doubts about which Democratic
candidate actually won the Iowa caucuses, there are fresh calls for
the party to mirror the simple, secret-ballot method that Iowa
Republicans use.
“It’s worth discussing again, but it’s not as simple as it sounds,”
said Norm Sterzenbach, a former Iowa Democratic Party executive
director who, after five election cycles, is an expert on the nuts
and bolts of the caucuses.
Why are Democratic insiders so reluctant to update a voting system
panned this week by national political observers as archaic and
nonsensical?
They blame New Hampshire, the state Iowa party leaders have worked
with for decades to make sure Iowa retains the first-in-the-nation
caucuses and New Hampshire the first primary.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79679&title=%26%238220%3BUproar%20could%20lead%20to%20revamping%20Democratic%20caucuses%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>
“27 Dollars. Yeah we f**king know because you say it every time
you’re on f**king TV” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79677>
Posted onFebruary 7, 2016 12:18 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79677>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
If you are a Curb Your Enthusiasm fan and a political junkie it doesn’t
getfunnier than this <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn4tP7ogWIA>,
“bern your enthusiasm.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79677&title=%26%238220%3B27%20Dollars.%20Yeah%20we%20f**king%20know%20because%20you%20say%20it%20every%20time%20you%26%238217%3Bre%20on%20f**king%20TV%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection law "humor" <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=52>
“Questions abound after judges invalidate 2 NC congressional
districts” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79675>
Posted onFebruary 7, 2016 12:15 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79675>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Charlotte Observer:
<http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article58956648.html>
The day after a panel of federal judges invalidated two of North
Carolina’s 13 congressional districts, state elections officials
were working on a Saturday afternoon to encourage voters with
absentee ballots to vote the full ballot anyway.
Kim Strach, executive director of the N.C. Board of Elections, and
Josh Lawson, general counsel for the board, said Saturday that they
did not want voters who received the 8,611 absentee ballots sent out
for the March 15 primary elections to lose an opportunity to vote.
“The number one message we want to get out is we want voters to
continue voting,” Strach said Saturday afternoon.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79675&title=%26%238220%3BQuestions%20abound%20after%20judges%20invalidate%202%20NC%20congressional%20districts%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,redistricting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
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>
--
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
hhttp://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/20160208/478389ad/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/20160208/478389ad/attachment.png>
View list directory