[EL] ELB News and Commentary 2/14/16
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Sun Feb 14 14:02:14 PST 2016
“How Scalia’s Death Could Shake Up Campaign Finance; It might be the
opening reformers have been waiting for”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79944>
Posted onFebruary 14, 2016 2:00 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79944>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I have writtenthis commentary
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/antonin-scalia-death-campaign-finance-reform-213633>for
Politico magazine. Here’s a snippet:
How did Scalia eventually get his way on the question of how to
balance First Amendment rights of free speech against strong
government interests like preventing corruption or promoting
political equality? It was not through a formal constitutional
amendment, which would have required a supermajority vote in
Congress and approval by three-fourths of the states. Instead, in
2006, the meaning of the Constitution changed in 2006 when Justice
Sandra Day O’Connor, the crucial fifth vote to uphold reasonable
campaign finance limits, retired and was replaced by Justice Samuel
Alito. Alito, like Scalia, has never voted in favor of a campaign
finance limit inhis 10 years on the Court
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/12/supreme-court-justice-samuel-alito-conservative-oconnor/79770058/>.
And just as the meaning of the Constitution turned on a dime with
Alito’s confirmation, there are three ways it can do so again to
allow reasonable limits on campaign money.
First, Obama nominates a new justice who gets Senate approval. The
president has said he will nominate someone to replace Scalia.
Anyone the president nominates, if confirmed, will likely vote the
way his past nominees, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan,
have voted: in favor of reasonable limits.
Second, states challenge/Citizens United/before a new justice is
confirmed. If Obama’s nominees are blocked (Senate Majority leader
Mitch McConnell has already said he does not think there should be a
confirmation in Obama’s remaining months), all is not lost. A brave
federal circuit court or state Supreme Court might do what the
Montana Supreme Court did soon after/Citizens United/: uphold
corporate spending limits in state elections. The Supreme Court in a
short opinion on a 5-4 votesmacked down
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-1179h9j3.pdf>the
Montana Supreme Court, but it could not do the same today. A 4-4 tie
in the Supreme Court keeps the lower court opinion in place, and
that could, at least in some states, restore us to the pre-/Citizens
United/era.
Third, the country elects a Democratic president—or maybe Trump.
Campaign finance is an issue in the presidential election like it
has never been before. Democratic candidates Clinton and Sanders
have said overruling/Citizens United/will be a litmus test for their
appointees to the Court. You can bet future Supreme Court nominees
of Democratic presidents will be vetted closely on this issue.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79944&title=%26%238220%3BHow%20Scalia%E2%80%99s%20Death%20Could%20Shake%20Up%20Campaign%20Finance%3B%20It%20might%20be%20the%20opening%20reformers%20have%20been%20waiting%20for%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
1st Effect of Scalia’s Loss May Be on #SCOTUS Shadow Docket, But We
May Not Know It <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79942>
Posted onFebruary 14, 2016 1:53 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79942>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
One of the first ways that Justice Scalia’s absence will be felt in
Court decisions is on emergency motions and stay request which make its
way to the Supreme Court on an expedited basis, what Prof. Will Baude
calls the Supreme court’s “shadow docket.
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2545130>” Already
the practices here are opaque. The Court often rules without giving
reasons, or it gives cryptic reasons, and sometimes it is not even clear
which standard of review the Court applies. I’ve delved into this a bit
because the Court seems to have adopted a special rule for emergency
election law cases, which I’ve dubbed thePurcell principle
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2545676>, which
counsels against judicial changes to election rules in the period just
before the election.
In fact, the Court has a pending emergency motion in an election law
case before it right now. It is a North Carolina congressional
redistricting case. A special three-judge district court held that two
of the congressional districts were unconstitutional “racial
gerrymanders” (more on the substance of such a claimhere)
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2601459>. The
district court ordered lines to be redrawn within two weeks by the NC
Legislature. But absentee balloting is already underway. The state,
raising the Purcell principle, argues for the Supreme Court to stay the
order, in effect allowing the 2016 elections to go forward under the old
lines.
Suppose (we don’t know this) that the Court would have been 5-4 in favor
of granting a stay, with Justice Scalia in the majority and the Court
dividing on conservative-liberal lines. Now imagine that with Scalia’s
loss, the Court is 4-4. Then the Court would deny the stay. The Court
likely would issue an order denying the stay without giving the
vote—that is its usual practice. But a denial could also mean the vote
was 3-5, or even 0-8. We just won’t know what Scalia’s loss means.
And think of the unprecedented order the Court issued a few weeks ago in
the power plant case, where the Court stopped the environmental rule
from going into effect even before the DC Circuit has had a chance to
rule on the question. That vote /was/5-4. If the vote came this week,
that power plant rule would still be in effect. I think it would be bad
form for the SG to ask for rehearing on that stay order, but on the
merits, the Court would be dividing 4-4.
So much more goes on behind the scenes at the Court that we never see,
because the Court is the least transparent branch of government, by far.
Justice Scalia’s loss then already may be having great effects that we
cannot measure.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79942&title=1st%20Effect%20of%20Scalia%26%238217%3Bs%20Loss%20May%20Be%20on%20%23SCOTUS%20Shadow%20Docket%2C%20But%20We%20May%20Not%20Know%20It&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Donald Trump Likely Has Standing To Contest Cruz’s Eligibility.
Trump Should Lose on the Merits, If Courts Reach the Merits
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79940>
Posted onFebruary 14, 2016 12:51 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79940>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The lawsuits filed so far in federal court to get Ted Cruz kicked off
the ballot as a natural born citizen likely have an insurmountable
standing problem. “Voters” as a class generally do not have enough of a
concrete stake in the proceedings to have the case heard in federal
court. (Federal courts under Article III of the Constitution can decide
only cases or controversies, and standing is one of those doctrines to
make sure there is enough at stake for such a case to be heard.)
Recently, Donald Trump tweeted that he would have standing to sue to
try to get Cruz kicked off the ballot. Is that true? First, let’s clear
the brush.
1. To begin with, Cruz would almost certainly have standing if a local
election official refused to put Cruz on the ballot ruling him
ineligible because he is not a natural born citizen. But so far I’m
not aware of any elected official that has so ruled.
2. I also don’t know enough about state standing rules etc. to know how
a Trump or other case would fare in /state/court, rather than
federal court. Each state’s rules on standing are different.
3. There may be other doctrines besides standing that could keep a
federal court for deciding the question. For example, a court may
say that this is a non-justiciable political question, which is
committed to state legislatures (which pick the rules for choosing
presidential electors) on Congress (which counts electoral college
votes).
So here’s the case for Trump’s standing (as I alluded to in anearlier
post <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79892>): competitive standing.
Here’s a 2008 federal district court case,Hollander v. McCain
<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Hollander-Order-7-24-08.pdf>,
involving a voter challenge to McCain’s eligibility to run for president:
To be sure, courts have held that a candidate or his political party
has standing to challenge the inclusion of an allegedly ineligible
rival on the ballot, on the theory that doing so hurts the
candidate’s or party’s own chances of prevailing in the election.
See, e.g., Tex. Dem. Party v. Benkiser, 459 F.3d 582, 586-87 & n.4
(5th Cir. 2006); Schulz v. Williams, 44 F.3d 48, 53 (2d Cir. 1994);
Fulani v. Hogsett, 917 F.2d 1028, 1030 (7th Cir. 1990). But that
notion of “competitive standing” has never been extended to voters
challenging the eligibility of a particular candidate. See Gottlieb
v. Fed. Elec. Comm’n, 143 F.3d 618, 622 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
And here’s a 9th Circuit case which recognizes the doctrine as applied
to real candidates for office,Drake v. Obama
<http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2011/12/22/0956827.pdf>,
involving a challenge to Obama’s eligibility to run for president:
The remaining plaintiffs were political candidates and a certified
elector during the 2008 general election. Plaintiffs Alan Keyes and
Wiley S. Drake were the Presidential and Vice Presidential
candidates, respectively, of the American Independent Party on the
California ballot in the 2008 Presidential Election. Plaintiff Gail
Lightfoot, a member of California’s Libertarian Party, was an
official write-in Vice Presidential candidate in California in 2008.
Plaintiff Markham Robinson was a certified California elector for,
and Chairman of, the American Independent Party.
These plaintiffs argue that they have standing because, as
candidates running against Obama in the 2008 election, they had an
interest in having a fair competition for the positions they sought
to obtain. If Obama entered the presidential race without meeting
the requirements for the office, they contend, the candidates did
not have a fair opportunity to obtain votes in their favor.
Plaintiffs further argue that Robinson, as an elector, also had an
interest in a fair competition between eligible candidates,
including those for whom he had pledged to vote.
Plaintiffs cite a case from the District of New Hampshire,/Hollander
v. McCain/
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2016612304&originatingDoc=I93188a942cd911e18da7c4363d0963b0&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29>,
for the proposition that “a candidate or his political party has
standing to challenge the inclusion of an allegedly ineligible rival
on the ballot, on the theory that doing so hurts the candidate’s or
party’s own chances of prevailing in the election.”566 F.Supp.2d 63,
68 (D.N.H.2008)
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2016612304&pubNum=4637&originatingDoc=I93188a942cd911e18da7c4363d0963b0&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_4637_68&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29#co_pp_sp_4637_68>.
This notion of “competitive standing” has been recognized by several
circuits./See, e.g.,//Tex. Democratic Party v. Benkiser,/459 F.3d
582, 586–87 & n. 4 (5th Cir.2006)
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2009654461&pubNum=506&originatingDoc=I93188a942cd911e18da7c4363d0963b0&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_506_586&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29#co_pp_sp_506_586>(political
party has standing because “threatened loss of [political] power is
still a concrete and particularized injury sufficient for standing
purposes”);/Schulz v. Williams,/44 F.3d 48, 53 (2d Cir.1994)
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1995020609&pubNum=506&originatingDoc=I93188a942cd911e18da7c4363d0963b0&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_506_53&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29#co_pp_sp_506_53>(political
party representative has standing because his party may “suffer a
concrete, particularized, actual injury—competition on the ballot
from candidates that … were able to avoid complying with the
Election Laws and a resulting loss of votes”) (internal quotation
marks omitted);/Fulani v. Hogsett,/917 F.2d 1028, 1030 (7th
Cir.1990)
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1990160829&pubNum=350&originatingDoc=I93188a942cd911e18da7c4363d0963b0&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_350_1030&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29#co_pp_sp_350_1030>(third-party
presidential candidate had standing because the allegedly improper
placement of the major-party candidates on the ballot resulted in
“increased competition” that required “additional campaigning and
outlays of funds” and resulted in lost opportunities to obtain
“press exposure” and win the election).
We, too, have upheld the notion of “competitive standing.” In/Owen
v. Mulligan,/
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1981111588&originatingDoc=I93188a942cd911e18da7c4363d0963b0&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29>we
held that the “potential loss of an election” was an injury-in-fact
sufficient to give a local candidate and Republican party officials
standing.640 F.2d 1130, 1132–33 (9th Cir.1981)
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1981111588&pubNum=350&originatingDoc=I93188a942cd911e18da7c4363d0963b0&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_350_1132&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29#co_pp_sp_350_1132>.
In that case, the candidate for local office sued the Postal Service
for giving his rival a preferential mailing rate, in violation of
its own regulations and of its representations to the court
regarding procedures implemented in response to a previous
injunction./Id./at 1132.
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1981111588&originatingDoc=I93188a942cd911e18da7c4363d0963b0&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29>The
candidate and party officials sought “to prevent their opponent from
gaining an unfair advantage in the election process through abuses
of mail preferences which arguably promote his electoral
prospects.”/Id./at 1133
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1981111588&originatingDoc=I93188a942cd911e18da7c4363d0963b0&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29>(internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). We rejected the Postal
Service’s argument that the potential loss of an election due to an
unfair advantage for the opponent was an “injury [that was] too
remote, speculative and unredressable to confer standing.”/Id./at
1132
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1981111588&originatingDoc=I93188a942cd911e18da7c4363d0963b0&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29>(internal
quotation marks omitted).^3
<http://electionlawblog.org/#co_footnote_B00332026724498_1>
Here, the District Court assumed, without deciding, that only those
plaintiffs who were political candidates in 2008 could potentially
satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of standing because they had
a competitive interest in running against a qualified candidate. The
District Court then turned to the redressability requirement of
standing.
The District Court was mistaken in assuming, however, that the
political candidates still had an interest in a fair competition at
the time the complaint was filed. The original complaint was filed
on January 20, 2009, at 3:26 p.m. Pacific Standard Time, after
President Obama was officially sworn in as President. The First
Amended Complaint was filed on July 14, 2009.**784*Whichever
complaint is considered, the 2008 general election was over when it
was filed. Once the 2008 election was over and the President sworn
in, Keyes, Drake, and Lightfoot were no longer “candidates” for the
2008 general election. Moreover, they have not alleged any interest
in running against President Obama in the future. Therefore, none of
the plaintiffs could claim that they would be injured by the
“potential loss of an election.”/Owen,/640 F.2d at 1132.
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1981111588&pubNum=350&originatingDoc=I93188a942cd911e18da7c4363d0963b0&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_350_1132&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Keycite%29#co_pp_sp_350_1132>Plaintiffs’
competitive interest in running against a qualified candidate had
lapsed.^4
<http://electionlawblog.org/#co_footnote_B00442026724498_1>Similarly, Robinson’s
interest as an elector—derived from the competitive interest of his
preferred candidates—was extinguished by the time the complaint was
filed.
For the foregoing reasons, the political candidates failed to
establish redressability sufficient to establish standing. They
cannot claim competitive standing because they were no longer
candidates when they filed their complaint.
And here’s a recent federal district court case,/Grinois v. Electoral
College, /explaining /Drake:/
Several Circuits, including the Ninth Circuit, have recognized a
“competitive standing” theory./See, e.g.,//Owen v. Mulligan,/640
F.2d 1130, 1132–33 (9th Cir.1981)
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1981111588&pubNum=350&originatingDoc=Ida81325ec6b011e28501bda794601919&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_350_1132&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Folder*cid.bb4514af34b24b87a651aca1877ce4f0*oc.Keycite%29#co_pp_sp_350_1132>;/Tex.
Dem.//Party v. Benkiser,/459 F.3d 582, 586–87 (5th Cir.2006)
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2009654461&pubNum=506&originatingDoc=Ida81325ec6b011e28501bda794601919&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_506_586&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Folder*cid.bb4514af34b24b87a651aca1877ce4f0*oc.Keycite%29#co_pp_sp_506_586>;/Schulz
v. Williams,/44 F.3d 48, 53 (2d Cir.1994)
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1995020609&pubNum=506&originatingDoc=Ida81325ec6b011e28501bda794601919&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_506_53&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Folder*cid.bb4514af34b24b87a651aca1877ce4f0*oc.Keycite%29#co_pp_sp_506_53>;/Fulani
v. Hogsett,/917 F.2d 1028, 1030 (7th Cir.1990)
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1990160829&pubNum=350&originatingDoc=Ida81325ec6b011e28501bda794601919&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_350_1030&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Folder*cid.bb4514af34b24b87a651aca1877ce4f0*oc.Keycite%29#co_pp_sp_350_1030>.
The Ninth Circuit has explained that “a candidate or his political
party has standing to challenge the inclusion of an allegedly
ineligible rival on the ballot, on the theory that doing so hurts
the candidate’s or party’s own chances of prevailing in the
election.”/Drake v. Obama,/664 F.3d 774, 782 (9th Cir.2011)
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2026724498&pubNum=506&originatingDoc=Ida81325ec6b011e28501bda794601919&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_506_782&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Folder*cid.bb4514af34b24b87a651aca1877ce4f0*oc.Keycite%29#co_pp_sp_506_782>(quoting/Hollander,/566
F.Supp.2d 63, 68 (D.N.H.2008)
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2016612304&pubNum=4637&originatingDoc=Ida81325ec6b011e28501bda794601919&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_4637_68&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Folder*cid.bb4514af34b24b87a651aca1877ce4f0*oc.Keycite%29#co_pp_sp_4637_68>).
For the competitive standing theory to apply, however, a competitor
must have a “chance of prevailing in the election.”/Drake,/664 F.3d
at 782
<http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2026724498&pubNum=506&originatingDoc=Ida81325ec6b011e28501bda794601919&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_506_782&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Folder*cid.bb4514af34b24b87a651aca1877ce4f0*oc.Keycite%29#co_pp_sp_506_782>.
A chance is “the possibility of a particular outcome in an uncertain
situation.” (Merriam–Webster’s Dictionary, m-w.com.) Other courts
have emphasized that a political candidate must be a “competitor” or
“rival” to demonstrate the particularized injury element of
competitive standing….
It looks like Trump would satisfy the /Drake/test. He’s a serious
candidate, who faces a potential loss of election to Cruz. He’s not a
write-in candidate who’s just trying to conjure up standing. He faces a
real injury. I’m perplexed by JoshDouglas’s statement
<http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2016/02/does-donald-trump-have-standing-to-keep-ted-cruz-off-of-the-ballot.html>that it
would be hard to show that Trump faces additional expenses having to run
against Cruz and therefore he does not have enough at sake for standing.
Of course he has to spend more to run against Cruz. As candidates drop
out, he can spend less to fight against each of them.
Now just because Trump would likely have standing, at least for a suit
in the Ninth Circuit, does not mean he’d win. There may be political
question issues, as I’ve mentioned. His suit may come too late, and be
barred by laches.
But what if the courts reach the merits? As I’ve argued inthis NLJ piece
<https://t.co/Vn1qVlUt2V>, at that point courts should rule that Cruz
should win:
It is easy for liberals to latch onto the_Donald Trump-fueled theory
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/us/politics/it-may-be-time-to-resolve-the-meaning-of-natural-born.html>_that
Sen. Ted Cruz is ineligible to be president because he is not a
“natural born” citizen. The argument allows progressives to call
Cruz a hypocrite given his preferred originalist method of
constitutional interpretation. And it gives conservative Republicans
a taste of the noxious birther medicine that’s been used against
President Barack Obama.
But liberals should embrace an interpretation of the Constitution
that maximizes the voter choice and enfranchisement of voters, one
that would minimize the reach of an archaic constitutional provision
suggesting that only those born on U.S. soil are qualified to be
president. Fight Cruz on his ideas, not his eligibility for office.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79940&title=Donald%20Trump%20Likely%20Has%20Standing%20To%20Contest%20Cruz%26%238217%3Bs%20Eligibility.%20Trump%20Should%20Lose%20on%20the%20Merits%2C%20If%20Courts%20Reach%20the%20Merits&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
Seth Tillman Says Obama Recess Appointment to SCOTUS Could Backfire
on Democrats <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79938>
Posted onFebruary 14, 2016 12:11 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79938>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Interesting
<http://reformclub.blogspot.ie/2016/02/a-quick-thought-on-presidential-recess.html>.
I don’t expect there will be a sufficiently long recess before next
January in any case to give the President an opportunity.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79938&title=Seth%20Tillman%20Says%20Obama%20Recess%20Appointment%20to%20SCOTUS%20Could%20Backfire%20on%20Democrats&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Presidential Candidates Pledge To Undo Citizens United. But Can
They?” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79936>
Posted onFebruary 14, 2016 10:17 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79936>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Peter Overby reports for NPR
<http://www.npr.org/2016/02/14/466668949/presidential-candidates-pledge-to-undo-citizens-united-but-can-they>.
I’ll have more on this question soon.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79936&title=%26%238220%3BPresidential%20Candidates%20Pledge%20To%20Undo%20Citizens%20United.%20But%20Can%20They%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“U.S. Supreme Court vacancy upends presidential race”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79934>
Posted onFebruary 14, 2016 9:58 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79934>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Reuters reports.
<http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-scalia-election-vacancy-judge-idUSKCN0VN06U>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79934&title=%26%238220%3BU.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20vacancy%20upends%20presidential%20race%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Talking Justice Scalia on MSNBC with Joy Reid, Mark Alexander, and
Katon Dawson <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79932>
Posted onFebruary 14, 2016 9:53 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79932>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Watch.
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-news/watch/the-new-era-in-supreme-court-nominations-622817859697>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79932&title=Talking%20Justice%20Scalia%20on%20MSNBC%20with%20Joy%20Reid%2C%20Mark%20Alexander%2C%20and%20Katon%20Dawson&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Scalia’s Supreme Court Seat and the Next Frontier in Political
Hardball” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79930>
Posted onFebruary 14, 2016 9:52 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79930>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Emily Bazelon
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/magazine/scalias-supreme-court-seat-and-the-next-frontier-in-political-hardball.html?_r=0> for
NYT Magazine:
If Mr. Obama nominated a moderate and the Republicans who control
the Senate refused to confirm him, would the country find itself in
the throes of a constitutional crisis? I did a quick poll of five
constitutional law professors on Saturday night, and the consensus
was no. “The world won’t crumble,” as Bruce Ackerman, a Yale law
professor, put it.
The government will still function in the interim, even if it is a
long interim. The court can still decide cases. If it splits 4-4 (as
it does every once in a while when one justice or another sits out a
case), then the lower court ruling is upheld. That is likely in one
major case this term. The court recently heard arguments in
asignificant challenge to the labor movement
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/09/us/politics/union-fees-friedrichs-v-california-teachers-association.html>over
the collection of dues by public-sector unions, and itlooked like
the plaintiffs would prevail
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/us/politics/at-supreme-court-public-unions-face-possible-major-setback.html>;
a tie, without Scalia, would keep the current system intact. Even a
run of 4-4 rulings will not create chaos. The outcomes would be more
likely to preserve the status quo, especially because the court
could wait to take cases until it can resolve them with a clear
majority.
But even if a Republican refusal to confirm a nominee by Mr. Obama
would not bring the government to a stop, it would still be a major
political struggle — a “stress test for our system of separation of
powers,” said Richard Hasen, a University of California, Irvine, law
professor and author of the new book “Plutocrats United
<http://www.amazon.com/Plutocrats-United-Campaign-Distortion-Elections/dp/0300212453>.”
In 2004, Mark Tushnet, a Georgetown University law professor, wrote
an article about “constitutional hardball
<http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1557&context=facpub>,”
which he defines as legal and political moves that are “within the
bounds of existing constitutional doctrine and practice but that are
nonetheless in some tension with existing/pre/-constitutional
understandings.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79930&title=%26%238220%3BScalia%E2%80%99s%20Supreme%20Court%20Seat%20and%20the%20Next%20Frontier%20in%20Political%20Hardball%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Justice Scalia, The Most Sarcastic Justice
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79928>
Posted onFebruary 13, 2016 6:29 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79928>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Last year I wrote a piece for the Green Bag called “The Most Sarcastic
Justice <http://www.greenbag.org/v18n2/v18n2_ex_post_hasen.pdf>.” Adam
Liptak did anice writeup about it
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/20/us/scalia-lands-at-top-of-sarcasm-index-of-justices-shocking.html>in
the NY Times, andZach Goldfarb
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/13/the-snarky-lines-that-made-justice-scalia-the-king-of-supreme-court-sarcasm/>has
highlights now at WaPo’s Wonkblog. The article begins:
Justice Scalia is the most sarcastic justice on the Supreme Court.
He has been for at least the last thirty years, and there is good
reason to believe no other Justice in history has come close to his
level of sarcasm. Now your first reaction to this claim, if you are
a (sarcastic) Supreme Court aficionado or reader of the Green Bag
(the two categories overlap almost perfectly), is probably: “Well,
duh!” And your second reaction is likely: “Oh really? Well how can
you prove that?”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79928&title=Justice%20Scalia%2C%20The%20Most%20Sarcastic%20Justice&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
What Will Happen with the North Carolina Redistricting Case?
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79925>
Posted onFebruary 13, 2016 6:08 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79925>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I’ve been predicting a stay from the Supreme Court of the district court
order, which would stop the current election (already begun with
absentees) and have the state quickly redistrict and hold new elections
with new district lines. With Justice Scalia’s death, a stay is now less
likely, if the Court divides along liberal-conservative lines, although
it could well be that Justice Breyer and others would agree with the
state of North Carolina that under thePurcell Principle,
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2545676>this change
simply comes too late with voting already begun.
We will see.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79925&title=What%20Will%20Happen%20with%20the%20North%20Carolina%20Redistricting%20Case%3F&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Justice Scalia’s Death and Implications for the 2016 Election, the
Supreme Court and the Nation <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79915>
Posted onFebruary 13, 2016 2:29 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79915>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Justice Antonin Scaliahas died in Texas
<http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/breaking-news-supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dead-at-the-age-of-79-219246#ixzz405b9iFAQ> at
the age of 79. Let me begin with condolences to his family, friends,
and former clerks who were fiercely loyal to him (and he to them).
Whatever you thought of Justice Scalia’s politics and jurisprudence, he
was an American patriot, who believed in the greatness of the United
States and in the strength of American courts to protect the
Constitution’s values as he has seen them. He also wrote the most
entertaining and interesting opinions of any Justice on the Court.
I was just in the early stages of a project to evaluate Justice Scalia’s
legacy, and I will have much to say later on about Justice Scalia’s
impact on the judiciary where his views on constitutional originalism
and new textualist statutory interpretation have have played a key role
in the development of American jurisprudence and argumentation in the
federal courts.
But let’s begin here with the implications for the Court’s current term,
its impact on the 2016 election, and on the Nation as a whole.
/*The Court’s current term. */The Supreme Court has been divided in
recent years between liberals and conservatives, and more recently
between Republican-appointed Justices (all conservative) and
Democratic-appointed Justices (all liberal). There are a number of key
cases coming to the Court where the Court was expected to divide 5-4 on
issues ranging from abortion, to affirmative action, to labor union
power, to the President’s power over immigration and energy policy, to
voting rights. While there is a vacancy on the Court, many of those
cases would now be expected to divide 4-4, which would lead the Court
perhaps to dismiss the cases by an equally divided court, leaving lower
court opinions standing—whether than opinion pointed in a liberal or
conservative direction. Some of those cases could perhaps be delayed for
appointment of a new Justice, a Justice that could potentially swing the
Court from a 5-4 conservative majority to a 5-4 liberal majority. But
that assumes that President Obama could nominate a liberal who could get
confirmed by the Republican Senate. I think that’s fairly unlikely. Let
me turn to that point.
/*A replacement by President Obama*//*?*/**It would be good for the
Court as an institution to have a full complement of Justices, so that
it does not divide 4-4 and can get the people’s business done. However,
President Obama is coming toward the end of his term, and would need to
get an appointee through the Senate Judiciary Committee. In the best of
times, this is a process that takes months. But this is not the best of
times. This is a highly polarized time, and strong conservatives will
fight VERY hard to have Republicans block a liberal appointment to the
Court. So the Obama administration faces something of a choice. Nominate
a hard-core liberal who could be filibustered by a Republican Senate, or
nominate someone more moderate (Judge Garland?) who could PERHAPS get
confirmed if enough Republicans would be willing to go along. That’s no
sure thing at all. One reason for nominating a strong liberal would be
to make the issue more salient in the Presidential election. So let me
now turn to that.
/*The Supreme Court as a 2016 Presidential campaign issue*/*. *A few
months ago, before the death of Justice Scalia, I wrote the following
atTalking Points Memo
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/supreme-court-greatest-civil-rights-cause>:
The future composition of the Supreme Court is the most important
civil rights cause of our time. It is more important than racial
justice, marriage equality, voting rights, money in politics,
abortion rights, gun rights, or managing climate change. It matters
more because the ability to move forward in these other civil rights
struggles depends first and foremost upon control of the Court. And
control for the next generation is about to be up for grabs, likely
in the next presidential election, a point many on the right but few
on the left seem to have recognized.
When the next President of the United States assumes office on
January 20, 2017, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be nearly 84,
Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy will be over 80, and
Justice Stephen Breyer will be 78. Although many Justices have
served on the Court into their 80s and beyond, the chances for all
of these Justices remaining through the next 4 or 8 years of the
45th President are slim. Indeed, the next president will likely make
multiple appointments to the Court.
The stakes are high. On non-controversial cases, or cases where the
ideological stakes are low, the Justices often agree and are
sometimes unanimous. In such cases, the Justices act much like lower
court judges do, applying precedents, text, history, and a range of
interpretative tools to decide cases. In the most controversial
cases, however—those involving issues such as gun rights,
affirmative action, abortion, money in politics, privacy, and
federal power—the value judgments and ideology of the Supreme Court
Justices, and increasingly the party affiliation of the president
appointing them, are good predictors of each Justice’s vote.
A conservative like Justice Scalia tends to vote to uphold abortion
restrictions, strike down gun restrictions, and view the First
Amendment as protecting the right to spend unlimited sums in
elections. A liberal like Justice Ginsburg tends to vote the
opposite way: to strike down abortion restrictions, uphold gun laws,
and view the government’s interest in stopping undue influence of
money in elections as justifying some limits on money in politics.
This to not to say it is just politics in these cases, or that these
Justices are making crassly partisan decisions. They’re not. It is
that increasingly a Justice’s ideology and jurisprudence line up
with one political party’s positions or another because Justices are
chosen for that very reason.
Especially if Senate Republicans block a liberal appointee to the
Supreme Court, this has the potential to inject this issue into the
Presidential campaign. And it will work both ways. You can bet that Ted
Cruz will be running on a platform to replace Scalia with more and more
Scalias. This could finally be the election that brings the Supreme
Court into national focus much more (it has not been mentioned so far in
any of the presidential debates I’ve seen). You can listen to UCI Law
Dean Erwin Chemerinsky discuss the implications of the changing Supreme
Court with Dahlia Lithwick onSlate’s Amicus podcast.
<http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/amicus/2016/02/the_supreme_court_and_the_2016_presidential_elections.html>
/*The Implications for the Nation of a changing Supreme Court*/*. *There
is so much at stake concerning the Supreme Court for the next few years.
As I wrote in /Plutocrats United/,
<http://www.amazon.com/Plutocrats-United-Campaign-Distortion-Elections/dp/0300212453/>the
easiest way to amend the Constitution to deal with campaign finance
disasters like the Supreme Court’s opinion in Citizens United is not to
formally amend the Constitution, but instead to change the composition
of the Supreme Court. Regardless of what happens with Justice Scalia’s
replacement, there will be likely at least three other Justices to be
appointed over the next 4-8 years of the next President’s term. The
stakes on all the issues people care about—from abortion to guns, from
campaign finance and voting rights to affirmative action and the
environment, depend upon 9 unelected Justices who serve for life.
Ed Whelan (a strong conservative, and former Scalia clerk) and I will be
doing a webcast onThe Supreme Court and the 2016 Elections
<http://www.law.uci.edu/events/election-law/scotus-elections-2016feb22.html>on
Feb. 22. I’m sure these issues will be hotly debated, as moderated by
my colleague (and former LA Times legal correspondent Henry Weinstein).
The kind of battles we will see over the fate of our Nation, enacted in
the polarized Congress and in a polarized nation, will be epic. The
stakes are high, and as I explain in Plutocrats United, depending on
conditions we could see a vacant Supreme Court for a while (look for
conservatives to argue over that) and likely the end of the filibuster
for Supreme Court nominees (look for that if there is unified control of
the Presidency and Senate, but without a filibuster proof majority.)
As I said at TPM, this is the moment. It is the beginning of the most
important civil rights debate of our time.
[This post has been updated.]
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79915&title=Justice%20Scalia%26%238217%3Bs%20Death%20and%20Implications%20for%20the%202016%20Election%2C%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20and%20the%20Nation&description=>
Posted inPlutocrats United <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Does Donald Trump Have Standing to Keep Ted Cruz off of the
Ballot?” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79913>
Posted onFebruary 13, 2016 1:00 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79913>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Josh Douglas blogs
<http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2016/02/does-donald-trump-have-standing-to-keep-ted-cruz-off-of-the-ballot.html>.
I hope to find time to respond soon.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79913&title=%26%238220%3BDoes%20Donald%20Trump%20Have%20Standing%20to%20Keep%20Ted%20Cruz%20off%20of%20the%20Ballot%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
NYU Law Review: Testing the Constitution
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79911>
Posted onFebruary 13, 2016 12:57 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79911>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Some very interesting articles, some related to election law, inthis
special symposium
issue<http://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-90-number-4>of the NYU
Law Review.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79911&title=NYU%20Law%20Review%3A%20Testing%20the%20Constitution&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Progressives’ anti-free speech itch”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79909>
Posted onFebruary 13, 2016 12:53 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79909>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
George Will column
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/progressives-anti-free-speech-itch/2016/02/12/387c1522-d0e8-11e5-b2bc-988409ee911b_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c%3Ahomepage%2Fstory>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79909&title=%26%238220%3BProgressives%E2%80%99%20anti-free%20speech%20itch%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Super PAC moves to ramp up financial firepower for Clinton”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79907>
Posted onFebruary 13, 2016 12:39 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79907>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democratic-groups-move-to-ramp-up-financial-firepower-for-clinton/2016/02/12/23ca8e00-d1b1-11e5-abc9-ea152f0b9561_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_demmoney902pm:homepage/story>:
Two powerful organizations within the Democratic establishment
announced steps Friday that have the potential to provide
substantial financial firepower to presidential contender Hillary
Clinton by drawing on the support of wealthy donors and corporate
interests.
While providing a likely boost to Clinton, both developments also
give rival Bernie Sanders fresh fodder to highlight her relationship
with Wall Street and other special interests at a time when the two
candidates are locked in an intense nomination fight.
Priorities USA Action, the main super PAC supporting
Clinton,unleashed a $5 million infusion of spending on her behalf
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/super-pac-makes-big-play-to-lift-hillary-clinton-in-primary-states/2016/02/11/39aca8dc-d019-11e5-abc9-ea152f0b9561_story.html>,
upending plans to hold its fire until the general election. The move
calls attention to growing concern within the party’s leadership
that her campaign may be in trouble, and it underscores how crucial
several upcoming contests have become in Clinton’s battle with
Sanders, a senator from Vermont.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79907&title=%26%238220%3BSuper%20PAC%20moves%20to%20ramp%20up%20financial%20firepower%20for%20Clinton%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
Pity the Billionaires Dep’t <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79905>
Posted onFebruary 12, 2016 5:23 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79905>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
“it’s frustrating,”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/gop-megadonors-fundraising-freeze-219228>one
megadonor tells Ken Vogel, that billionaires so far have not gotten
their way in the Republican presidential race.
I wonder if they can imagine what it feels like for the rest of us who
don’t have the millions to throw around in these races.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79905&title=Pity%20the%20Billionaires%20Dep%26%238217%3Bt&description=>
Posted incampaign finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Plutocrats United
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>
“When it comes to voting rights, North Carolina the new Selma”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79901>
Posted onFebruary 12, 2016 4:01 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79901>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
David Goodman oped
<http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article60113846.html>in the
News and Observer:
In the summer of 1964, the Ku Klux Klan murdered my brother, Andrew
Goodman, along with fellow civil rights advocates James Chaney and
Michael Schwerner, for having the temerity to try to register black
voters in Mississippi. One year later, Congress passed the Voting
Rights Act to protect voting rights, once and for all. Case closed.
Right?
Unfortunately, the case is not closed….
Unbeknownst to many Americans, John Roberts has campaigned against
the Voting Rights Act for years. I challenge his assertion that the
forces that led to the murder of my brother and others are no longer
a threat. Racial hatred and prejudice continue to linger in our
society. Case in point: the mass killings in South Carolina last
year. Another case in point: the continued glorification of the
confederacy and the values that it promoted.
The forces that once worked to suppress the rights of
African-Americans are still alive and well. Political
marginalization continues today. There is, however, a big difference
between 1964 and 2016. Today, the marginalized citizens are not only
include African-Americans, but also the poor, the young, the elderly
and the formerly incarcerated.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79901&title=%26%238220%3BWhen%20it%20comes%20to%20voting%20rights%2C%20North%20Carolina%20the%20new%20Selma%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
EAC’s Brian Newby Sued for Citizenship Form Decision
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79898>
Posted onFebruary 12, 2016 3:24 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79898>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Release:
U.S. Election Assistance Commission Executive Director Brian D.
Newby’s action to allow three states to require documentary proof of
citizenship on the federal voter registration form is illegal,
argued the League of Women Voters of the United States, along with
its Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas state Leagues, and others in a
suitfiled today
<http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=91806&qid=7957011>in
federal court.
Civil rights groups the Georgia NAACP, the Georgia Coalition for the
People’s Agenda, and Project Vote, along with Marvin Brown and JoAnn
Brown, also join the suit against the U.S. Election Assistance
Commission (EAC).
“Voters should not have to face an obstacle course in order to
participate in our democracy,” said*Elisabeth MacNamara*, national
League president. “We had hoped that a reconstituted EAC would focus
on improving election administration. This action by the executive
director would make the election system worse. His action challenges
the impartiality of the Commission.”
In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that Arizona could not require
documentary proof of citizenship on the federal registration form
without EAC approval. Kansas implemented a law similar to Arizona’s
the same year, and both states put proof of citizenship requirements
into effect for voters using their state forms. Subsequently, the
EAC and a federal court ruled it invalid for the federal form.
Alabama and Georgia, which passed similar provisions in 2011 and
2009, respectively, had not implemented their laws. Research shows7
percent of voters
<http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=91800&qid=7957011>do
not have documentary proof of citizenship, andtens of thousands of
Kansans
<http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=91801&qid=7957011>have
been blocked from registering to vote in the state.
On January 29, 2016, Newby sent letters to the secretaries of state
of Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas stating, without further
explanation, that he would allow the three states to require
citizenship documents for applicants using the federal registration
form. If the documents, such as birth certificates or passports, are
not provided, Americans will be denied the fundamental right to
vote. The federal form is designed to guarantee a “simple means of
registering to vote
<http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=91802&qid=7957011>,”
and already requires applicants to swear that they are U.S. citizens
under penalty of perjury.
The executive director did not have authority to allow the three
states to enforce documentary proof of citizenship requirements on
the federal form, and doing so violated both EAC policy and federal
law, according to a complaint submitted today by the Brennan Center
for Justice at NYU School of Law
<http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=91803&qid=7957011>with
pro bono counsel at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP; the Lawyers’
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the American Civil
Liberties Union with pro bono counsel Steptoe & Johnson LLP; and
Project Vote with pro bono counsel Arnold & Porter LLP.
Documentary proof of citizenship requirements undermine the groups’
efforts to increase civic participation and make it more difficult
for individuals to vote, according to the court filing.
“This change was unauthorized and illegal, and is hugely detrimental
to voters in Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas,” said*Wendy Weiser*,
director of the Brennan Center’s Democracy program and
representation for the Leagues in this case. “With presidential
primaries fast approaching, these citizens deserve clarity on how —
or if — they can register to vote. This will bring unneeded
confusion and uncertainty during this presidential election year.”
“Stroock is proud to be part of the team challenging this highly
troubling move, which would implement unnecessary requirements
already ruled illegal by a federal court and the Election Assistance
Commission itself,” said*Michael Keats*of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan
LLP, which also represents the Leagues. “We are confident this
unlawful action will not be allowed to stand.”
“Documentary proof of citizenship requirements have caused havoc for
Kansas elections,” said *Marge Ahrens*, co-president of the Kansas
League. “Already, the League is scrambling to help the tens of
thousands of eligible Kansans caught up in this ill-advised
regulation, and complicating the federal form in this manner will
make the problem even worse.”
“Making eligible Alabamians show citizenship documents when
registering to vote would seriously undercut our efforts to sign up
voters,” said*Anne Permaloff*, president of the Alabama League.
“Such an abrupt change would also interfere with our efforts to
educate the electorate on how to navigate existing obstacles to
voting, which are already significant.”
“We are concerned this change will further complicate what should be
a straightforward process,” said*Elizabeth Poythress*, president of
the Georgia League. “This additional burden on the voter
registration process is unnecessary, unreasonable, and could
effectively deny the right to vote to thousands of Georgia citizens
who are otherwise eligible and entitled by law to vote.”
“We have successfully litigated two cases where we defeated attempts
to require unnecessary and burdensome proof of citizenship for
Federal Form applicants,” stated*Jon Greenbaum*, chief counsel for
the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “We expect to
prevail a third time in this case.”
“As an organization that has been registering citizens to vote for
over 25 years, it is important that barriers to citizen
participation be removed,” said*Helen Butler,*Executive Director of
the Georgia Coalition for the Peoples’ Agenda. “We believe the
requirement to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote is
an unnecessary barrier, especially for communities of color.”
“This is a part of our ongoing post-Shelby election administration
monitoring across Georgia,” said*Francys Johnson*, Statesboro civil
rights attorney and Georgia NAACP state president. “This case is
illustrious of the insidious tricks, subterfuge, and attacks
eviscerating the gains achieved under the VRA and the NVRA. The
NAACP will mortgage every asset we have to defend the unfettered
access to the ballot. It was paid for with the blood, sweat and
tears of our ancestors — it’s sacred.”
“Brian Newby’s decision to unilaterally change the instructions on
the federal form to add new hurdles to voter registration is an
outrage. He did so without legal authority, without public notice,
and in direct opposition to the Election Assistance Commission’s
repeated rejection of such changes. His abuse of power is
unacceptable and illegal,” said*Dale Ho,*director of the ACLU’s
Voting Rights Project.
“Mr. Newby’s decision is an abrupt and outrageous reversal of the
EAC’s previous position, which was already upheld by a federal
appeals court,” said*Michelle Kanter Cohen*, election counsel for
Project Vote. “We will continue to fight against documentary proof
of citizenship requirements, which are designed to cripple community
voter registration drives and limit who gets to have a say in our
democracy.”
The suit is brought in response to Executive Director Newby’s sudden
and unexplained decision to allow three states to require applicants
using the federal registration form to show documents proving their
citizenship.
Nearly identical requests from Arizona and Kansas have already been
rejected by the EAC multiple times. Last June, the U.S. Supreme
Courtturned down a petition
<http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=91804&qid=7957011>from
Arizona and Kansas to hear/Kobach v. United States Election
Assistance Commission/
<http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=91805&qid=7957011>,
thereby letting stand a 10th Circuit ruling that the states may not
force applicants using the federal voter registration form to show
documents.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79898&title=EAC%26%238217%3Bs%20Brian%20Newby%20Sued%20for%20Citizenship%20Form%20Decision&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,Election Assistance Commission
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=34>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Can the Courts End Racial Gerrymandering?”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79896>
Posted onFebruary 12, 2016 3:04 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79896>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
To the Point:
<http://www.kcrw.com/news-culture/shows/to-the-point/can-the-courts-end-racial-gerrymandering>
The Constitution requires that the boundaries of congressional
districts be re-drawn every 10 years, according to the latest
census. In 2010, Republicans won control of legislatures all over
the country—and those GOP lawmakers then collectively increased
their Party’s power in Congress. When President Obama re-visited
the Illinois Capitol in Springfield this week, he said it’s time for
a change. The President’s talking about what’s called
Gerrymandering, a practice as old as the nation itself.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79896&title=%26%238220%3BCan%20the%20Courts%20End%20Racial%20Gerrymandering%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
--
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/20160214/f6a05629/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/20160214/f6a05629/attachment.png>
View list directory