[EL] Scott Walker pays fines
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Sat Feb 27 06:10:29 PST 2016
Jim, that is emphatically NOT what I said. I said that my posts are of
course fair game for discussion and debate on the listserv. It is just
that i personally won't engage in most of those debates, because I don't
feel that the debates are all that productive.
But fire away. Always happy to be attacked by you or anyone else. I just
may not choose to respond on the listserv.
Rick
On 2/27/16 9:04 AM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote:
> Regarding this post:
>
>
> Scott Walker Paid Fines for Accepting Corporate and Excessive
> Campaign Contributions <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80373>
>
> Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 5:35 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80373>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> This is
> back<http://www.startribune.com/gov-walker-s-campaign-paid-28-300-campaign-finance-penalty/370322821/>when
> Wisconsin still had meaningful campaign finance laws and a reputable
> agency to enforce them.
>
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80373&title=Scott
> Walker Paid Fines for Accepting Corporate and Excessive Campaign
> Contributions&description=
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80373&title=Scott%20Walker%20Paid%20Fines%20for%20Accepting%20Corporate%20and%20Excessive%20Campaign%20Contributions&description=>
> My take is that is "this is when Wisconsin had unconstitutionally
> overbroad and vague laws that governmental officials enforced in
> arbitrary and partisan ways."
> But we have been advised by Rick that, alas, Rick's opinions on this
> listserve are no longer debatable. See Rick's recent post to Brad
> Smith.. Jim Bopp
> In a message dated 2/26/2016 8:44:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>
>
>
> “Donald Trump Might Not Keep Paying for His Campaign Himself,
> Chris Christie Suggests” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80377>
>
> Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 5:41 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80377>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Maggie Haberman
> <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/26/donald-trump-might-not-keep-paying-for-his-campaign-himself-chris-christie-suggests/>for
> the NYT.
>
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80377&title=“Donald
> Trump Might Not Keep Paying for His Campaign Himself, Chris
> Christie Suggests”&description=
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80377&title=%26%238220%3BDonald%20Trump%20Might%20Not%20Keep%20Paying%20for%20His%20Campaign%20Himself%2C%20Chris%20Christie%20Suggests%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted incampaign finance
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>
>
> “Remember When Ted Cruz Helped Suppress the Minority Vote in
> Texas?” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80375>
>
> Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 5:38 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80375>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Spencer Woodman
> <https://newrepublic.com/article/130530/remember-ted-cruz-helped-suppress-minority-vote-texas>for
> TNR.
>
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80375&title=“Remember
> When Ted Cruz Helped Suppress the Minority Vote in
> Texas?”&description=
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80375&title=%26%238220%3BRemember%20When%20Ted%20Cruz%20Helped%20Suppress%20the%20Minority%20Vote%20in%20Texas%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted infraudulent fraud squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>
>
>
> Scott Walker Paid Fines for Accepting Corporate and Excessive
> Campaign Contributions <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80373>
>
> Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 5:35 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80373>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> This is
> back<http://www.startribune.com/gov-walker-s-campaign-paid-28-300-campaign-finance-penalty/370322821/>when
> Wisconsin still had meaningful campaign finance laws and a
> reputable agency to enforce them.
>
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80373&title=Scott
> Walker Paid Fines for Accepting Corporate and Excessive Campaign
> Contributions&description=
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80373&title=Scott%20Walker%20Paid%20Fines%20for%20Accepting%20Corporate%20and%20Excessive%20Campaign%20Contributions&description=>
> Posted incampaign finance
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,chicanery
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
>
>
> “Mississippi will appeal order to change Dem primary ballot”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80371>
>
> Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 5:31 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80371>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> AP:
> <http://www.sunherald.com/news/state/mississippi/article62471962.html>
>
> Mississippi’s top elections official said Thursday that he
> will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a state court
> order telling him to add another candidate to the March 8
> Democratic presidential primary ballot.
>
> Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann said he intends to file
> his appeal with the nation’s highest court Friday and he did
> not know whether it would receive rapid consideration.
>
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80371&title=“Mississippi
> will appeal order to change Dem primary ballot”&description=
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80371&title=%26%238220%3BMississippi%20will%20appeal%20order%20to%20change%20Dem%20primary%20ballot%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted inballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>
>
>
> “Donors ask GOP consulting firm to research independent
> presidential bid” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80369>
>
> Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 5:29 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80369>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Politico reports.
> <http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/doors-gop-consulting-independent-219859>
>
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80369&title=“Donors
> ask GOP consulting firm to research independent presidential
> bid”&description=
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80369&title=%26%238220%3BDonors%20ask%20GOP%20consulting%20firm%20to%20research%20independent%20presidential%20bid%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted inballot access
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>,campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>
>
> “When Super PACs Go Dark: LLCs Fuel Secret Spending”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80367>
>
> Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 5:25 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80367>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Eliza
> <http://prospect.org/article/when-super-pacs-go-dark-llcs-fuel-secret-spending>:
>
> A hallmark of super PACs, the political action committees that
> may raise unlimited contributions if they act independently
> from candidates, is that they must publicly disclose their donors.
>
> But in this election, super PACs and their backers are proving
> increasingly adept at skirting the federal disclosure rules,
> particularly through the use of limited liability companies,
> or LLCs—a type of business entity that leaves no paper trail
> and gives political players cover to hide their identities.
>
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80367&title=“When
> Super PACs Go Dark: LLCs Fuel Secret Spending”&description=
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80367&title=%26%238220%3BWhen%20Super%20PACs%20Go%20Dark%3A%20LLCs%20Fuel%20Secret%20Spending%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>
>
> “Scalia Took Dozens of Trips Funded by Private Sponsors”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80365>
>
> Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 5:23 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80365>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Eric Lipton
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/us/politics/scalia-led-court-in-taking-trips-funded-by-private-sponsors.html>for
> the NYT:
>
> WhenJustice Scalia
> <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/antonin_scalia/index.html?inline=nyt-per>died
> two weeks ago, he was staying, again for free, at a West Texas
> hunting lodge owned by a businessman whose company had
> recently had a matter before theSupreme Court
> <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org>.
>
> Though that trip has brought new attention to the justice’s
> penchant for travel, it was in addition to the 258 subsidized
> trips that he took from 2004 to 2014. Justice Scalia went on
> at least 23 privately funded trips in 2014 alone to places
> like Hawaii, Ireland and Switzerland, giving speeches,
> participating in moot court events or teaching classes. A few
> weeks before his death, he was inSingapore and Hong Kong
> <http://www.law.cuhk.edu.hk/en/events/detail.php?paramDate=2016-02-01&guid=F50BE73D-CC48-8EDE-6D3F-E18629BF4CE4-1453278297>….
>
> After Justice Scalia, the second most active traveler on the
> current court is Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who took 185
> privately paid trips from 2004 to 2014, according to a
> database built by the Center for Responsive Politics, based on
> individual reports filed by the justices. Chief Justice John
> G. Roberts Jr., based on a yearly average, had the fewest of
> these privately funded trips — a total of 48 from 2005 to
> 2014, the last year for which records are available. Over all,
> Supreme Court members disclosed 1,009 paid trips between 2004
> and 2014.
>
> The destinations often are luxurious, including the Casa de
> Campo Resort in the Dominican Republic, where Justice Samuel
> A. Alito Jr. was listed as a speaker for anevent last
> February,
> <https://www.federalbarcouncil.org/FBCFiles/2013_2014_FBC_Annual_Report_Website.pdf>or
> Zurich, where Justice Scalia traveled at least three times on
> privately funded trips….
>
> The disclosure reports show that the majority of the privately
> funded trips — by far — are sponsored by universities, both in
> the United States and around the world.
>
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80365&title=“Scalia
> Took Dozens of Trips Funded by Private
> Sponsors”&description=
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80365&title=%26%238220%3BScalia%20Took%20Dozens%20of%20Trips%20Funded%20by%20Private%20Sponsors%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted inconflict of interest laws
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>,Supreme Court
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
> “Lawsuit Challenging San Juan County’s Mail-Only Electoral
> System Filed” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80363>
>
> Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 5:15 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80363>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Release
> <https://lawyerscommittee.org/press-release/lawsuit-challenging-san-juan-countys-mail-only-electoral-system-filed/>:
>
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (Lawyers’
> Committee), DLA Piper, LLP, the American Civil Liberties Union
> (ACLU) and the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah (ACLU of
> Utah) announce the filing of a new lawsuit against San Juan
> County, Utah on behalf of the Navajo Nation Human Rights
> Commission, and seven members of the Navajo Nation. The
> lawsuit challenges the County’s decision to switch to a
> mail-only voting system that adversely impacts Navajo voters,
> and the County’s decision to designate the only site for
> in-person voting at a location far away from the majority of
> the Navajo voters.
>
> The lawsuit,/Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission v. San Juan
> County et al./
> <https://lawyerscommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Doc-2-San-JuanComplaint.pdf>/,/was
> filed in the United States District Court for the District of
> Utah and alleges that San Juan County violates provisions of
> the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth Amendment to
> the United States Constitution.
>
> The case arises from the County’s decision in 2014 to close
> all polling places and switch to a mail-only voting system.
> The County is covered by Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act
> and is required to provide all voting materials – including
> voting instructions and ballots – in both English and Navajo.
> However, because Navajo is an unwritten language, the County’s
> mail-only ballot system conflicts with their Section 203
> obligations.
>
> The postal system in rural parts of San Juan County, where
> many Navajo voters reside, is unreliable and not accessible,
> making it difficult for many Navajo voters to receive and
> return their ballots on time under a mail-only electoral
> system. Although the County is approximately half white and
> half Navajo, the only way a voter can vote in-person under the
> current voting scheme is to travel to the County Clerk’s
> office in the county seat of Monticello, which is 84 percent
> white.
>
> Because Navajo residents tend to live farther from the county
> seat than white residents, Navajo voters do not have the same
> voting opportunities as other residents: Navajo residents must
> travel, on average, more than twice as long as white residents
> in order to reach Monticello to vote in-person. The trip for a
> Navajo voter takes, on average, over two hours round trip,
> while the trip for a white voter takes, on average, under an
> hour. For residents living in the areas in the southwest of
> the County that are majority Navajo, the round trip to
> Monticello to vote in-person is even longer and may take
> between nine and ten hours.
>
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80363&title=“Lawsuit
> Challenging San Juan County’s Mail-Only Electoral System
> Filed”&description=
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80363&title=%26%238220%3BLawsuit%20Challenging%20San%20Juan%20County%E2%80%99s%20Mail-Only%20Electoral%20System%20Filed%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>
>
> Fan Mail: Ass Clown Edition <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80361>
>
> Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 5:11 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80361>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Via email:
>
> Mr. Hasen,
>
> I readyour article
> <http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2016/02/21/appoint-another-scalia-kiss-democracy-goodbye/>this
> week concerning Justice Scalia. After careful consideration I
> have come to this conclusion about the author: You sir are a
> complete Ass Clown.
>
> Your hyperbole on kissing democracy good bye reminds me of
> Donald Trump talking about his wall. Justice Scalia will be
> remembered as one of the most influential judicial minds of
> the century. You will be remembered by your students years
> from now as “you know, old what’s his name”.
>
> The University of California system seems like a nice,
> unchallenging place for you to place your pulpit.
>
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80361&title=Fan
> Mail: Ass Clown Edition&description=
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80361&title=Fan%20Mail%3A%20Ass%20Clown%20Edition&description=>
> Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
> “Outside Conservative Groups Overwhelm Arkansas Judge Races”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80357>
>
> Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 5:04 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80357>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> AP
> <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/conservative-groups-overwhelm-arkansas-judge-races-37221313>:
>
> The Judicial Crisis Network, a Washington-based group, has
> spent more than $600,000 on television ads targeting Justice
> Courtney Goodson as she runs for the chief justice post. A
> second group, the Republican State Leadership Committee’s
> Judicial Fairness Initiative, has bought about $250,000 worth
> of airtime for spots criticizing a Little Rock attorney in
> another high court race.
>
> The nearly $1.3 million spent on TV airtime alone more than
> doubles the previous Arkansas record for such spending in a
> judicial election, according to campaign finance groups.
>
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80357&title=“Outside
> Conservative Groups Overwhelm Arkansas Judge
> Races”&description=
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80357&title=%26%238220%3BOutside%20Conservative%20Groups%20Overwhelm%20Arkansas%20Judge%20Races%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted injudicial elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>
>
>
> “63,756 Reasons Racism Is Still Alive in South Carolina”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80353>
>
> Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 5:00 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80353>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Ari Berman
> <http://www.thenation.com/article/63756-reasons-why-racism-is-still-alive-in-south-carolina/>:
>
> Larrie Butler, a 90-year-old African-American man, was born in
> Calhoun County, South Carolina, at a time when the South was
> segregated during Jim Crow. He moved to Maryland after serving
> in the military and attending college, but returned to South
> Carolina in 2010. He got a voter-registration card and voted
> in the state in 2010.\
> In 2011, South Carolina passed a strict new voter-ID law
> requiring a government-issued photo ID to cast a ballot. When
> Butler went to the DMV to switch his driver’s license from
> Maryland to South Carolina, he was told he needed a birth
> certificate to confirm his identity. But Butler was born at
> home, when there were few black hospitals, and never received
> a born certificate. When he went to the state Vital Records
> office to get a birth certificate, they said he needed to
> produce his Maryland driving records and high-school records
> from South Carolina. After he returned with that information,
> he was told he needed his elementary-school records, which
> Butler couldn’t produce because the school was closed. So
> instead he found his census record, which was not accepted
> because his first name in the census, Larry, did not exactly
> match the name he’d used for his entire life, Larrie. He was
> told to go to court and legally change his name at 85 years
> old, in order to obtain the birth certificate required to get
> a driver’s license in South Carolina and also be able to vote.
>
> “It made me feel terrible,” Butler said.
>
> On May 18, 2011, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haleysigned the
> voter-ID law
> <https://www.scgop.com/2011/05/18/gov-nikki-haley-signs-voter-id-bill-into-law/>.
> “If you have to show a picture ID to buy Sudafed, if you have
> to show a picture ID to get on an airplane, you should show a
> picture ID when you vote,” Haley said.
>
> After the bill’s signing, Butler spoke at a press conference
> 10 feet away from where Haley spoke. He held up a plane ticket
> and Sudafed he’d bought with his Maryland driver’s license,
> which he was unable to use in South Carolina to vote. Shortly
> thereafter, the DMV called Butler and said they’d bypass the
> requirement for a birth certificate, allowing him to get a
> state driver’s license and vote in future elections.
>
> But there are still hundreds of thousands of South Carolinians
> facing similar obstacles as Butler. According to state data,
> 178,000 registered voters, 7 percent of the electorate, lack a
> DMV-issued photo ID. Minority voters are 20 percent more
> likely than whites to lack a DMV-issued ID, and there are
> 63,756 nonwhite registered voters without one.
>
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80353&title=“63,756
> Reasons Racism Is Still Alive in South
> Carolina”&description=
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80353&title=%26%238220%3B63%2C756%20Reasons%20Racism%20Is%20Still%20Alive%20in%20South%20Carolina%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted inelection administration
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
>
>
> “Celebrity Justice: Supreme Court Edition”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80351>
>
> Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 4:57 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80351>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The Green Bag has postedthe final
> version<http://www.greenbag.org/v19n2/v19n2_articles_hasen.pdf>of
> my article on how SCOTUS Justices are much more in the news than
> ever before.
>
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80351&title=“Celebrity
> Justice: Supreme Court Edition”&description=
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80351&title=%26%238220%3BCelebrity%20Justice%3A%20Supreme%20Court%20Edition%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted inCelebrity Justice
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=109>,Supreme Court
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
> “More Complaints about Super PACs”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80349>
>
> Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 4:54 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80349>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Bauer on Frum.
> <http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2016/02/complaints-super-pacs/>
>
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80349&title=“More
> Complaints about Super PACs”&description=
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80349&title=%26%238220%3BMore%20Complaints%20about%20Super%20PACs%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted incampaign finance
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>
>
> “Governor Brown seeks urgent Supreme Court intervention
> regarding ballot measure” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80347>
>
> Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 4:52 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80347>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> At the lectern
> <http://www.atthelectern.com/governor-brown-seeks-urgent-supreme-court-intervention-regarding-ballot-measure/>:
>
> The Supreme Court hadjust yesterday
> <http://www.atthelectern.com/supreme-court-will-not-order-anti-citizens-united-measure-onto-the-ballot/>finished
> its review of one controversial ballot proposition, when
> another one landed on its docket today. Governor Jerry Brown
> is asking the Supreme Court to overturn a superior court
> order, filed yesterday, that the Sacramento Beecalls
> <http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article62340057.html>“a
> major setback for Gov. Jerry Brown’s sweeping prison and
> parole initiative.” The order, which was sought by the
> California District Attorneys Association, prevents the
> circulation for voter signatures of aninitiative
> <http://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0121%20%28Prison%20Sentence%20Reform%29_0.pdf?>that
> would make certain nonviolent felons eligible for early parole.
>
> The governor’s emergency writ petition in/Brown v. Superior
> Court/
> <http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2134157&doc_no=S232642>is
> availablehere
> <https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mwth7urewl757ch/AADIxmH1G2oD4XYqGtTTSqRKa/1_S232642%20-%20Emergency%20Petition%20for%20Writ%20of%20Mandate.pdf?dl=0>,
> and the two-volume appendix in support of the petition is
> availablehere
> <https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mwth7urewl757ch/AACju-J0BXsR8Ved6dvddYS6a/2_S232642%20-%20Appendix%20%28Vol%201%20of%202%29.pdf?dl=0>andhere
> <https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mwth7urewl757ch/AAAgqYLOwJn4yH8PcvaK0Mfea/3_S232642%20-%20Appendix%20%28Vol%202%20of%202%29.pdf?dl=0>.
> Attorney General Kamala Harris — a real party in interest in
> the writ proceeding — has alreadyfiled a letter
> <https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mwth7urewl757ch/AADNqwR0_lRdH6InhTAbNNLza/4_S232642%20-%20Attorney%20General%20Letter%20in%20Support.pdf?dl=0>supporting
> the writ petition.
>
> From a very quick review of these materials, it appears the
> primary issue concerns the application of a recent change in
> the initiative process. The submission to the Attorney
> General of a proposed initiative now begins a 30-day public
> review period, during which the initiative proponent can
> “submit amendments to the measure that are reasonably germane
> to the theme, purpose, or subject of the initiative measure as
> originally proposed.” (Elections Code,section 9002
> <http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=ELEC§ionNum=9002.>.)
> It looks like Governor Brown submitted amendments that the
> superior court found to be not germane.
>
> [Evening update:No stay, but expedited supplemental briefing,
> for governor’s writ petition
> <http://www.atthelectern.com/no-stay-but-expedited-supplemental-briefing-for-governors-writ-petition/>.]
>
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80347&title=“Governor
> Brown seeks urgent Supreme Court intervention regarding ballot
> measure”&description=
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80347&title=%26%238220%3BGovernor%20Brown%20seeks%20urgent%20Supreme%20Court%20intervention%20regarding%20ballot%20measure%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted indirect democracy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>
>
>
> “Does the Biden speech undermine the case for Supreme Court
> confirmation hearings?” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80345>
>
> Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 4:48 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80345>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> John Witt:
> <http://balkin.blogspot.com/2016/02/does-biden-speech-undermine-case-for.html>
>
> As readers of this blog will likely know by now, then-Senator
> Joseph Biden delivered a speech on the Senate floor in June of
> 1992 warning that in the event of a Supreme Court vacancy,
> President George H. W. Bush ought not “name a nominee until
> after the November election is completed.” Biden urged that
> the Senate consider “not scheduling confirmation hearings on
> the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”
>
> Flash forward to 2016. Republicans in the Senate and
> elsewhere cite the Biden speech in support of their refusal to
> consider a nomination to fill the seat left vacant by the
> death of Justice Scalia. The country’s newspapers and
> commentators have gone along. The New York Times called
> Biden’s speech “a direct contradiction to President Obama’s
> position.”
>
> The Times is flat wrong. The Biden speech is no
> contradiction, but not for the reasons the White House and its
> allies have asserted. In 1992, Biden’s argument was that
> action “must be put off until after the election campaign is
> over.” In our system of government, the end of campaign
> season does not coincide with the inauguration of the new
> president. To the contrary, since the enactment of the
> Twentieth Amendment, the election gives way to a period of two
> and a half months in which the incumbent president, though to
> be sure a lame duck, holds all the formal powers of the
> office, including the power to nominate new justices. Biden’s
> move was to insist that, until the post-election period, there
> would be too much partisan rancor to have a full and fair
> hearing on the merits. After all, that was what mattered:
> ensuring an evaluation of the next justice on the merits, not
> according to a partisan political calculus.
>
> By contrast, when Republicans today insist that the the
> current president should not get a nomination at all, they
> assert the exact opposite: that partisan politics should
> decide the fate of the Court. Thus the letter to the Senate
> Majority Leader signed by every Republican member of the
> Senate Judiciary Committee announcing that there will be no
> hearings “on any Supreme Court nominee until after our next
> President is sworn in.”
>
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80345&title=“Does
> the Biden speech undermine the case for Supreme Court confirmation
> hearings?”&description=
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80345&title=%26%238220%3BDoes%20the%20Biden%20speech%20undermine%20the%20case%20for%20Supreme%20Court%20confirmation%20hearings%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
> “Without an Instant Runoff, Trump Favored to Win GOP
> Nomination” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80343>
>
> Posted onFebruary 26, 2016 4:40 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80343>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Rob Richiecrunches the numbers.
> <http://www.fairvote.org/without_an_instant_runoff_trump_favored_to_win_gop_nomination>
>
> https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80343&title=“Without
> an Instant Runoff, Trump Favored to Win GOP
> Nomination”&description=
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80343&title=%26%238220%3BWithout%20an%20Instant%20Runoff%2C%20Trump%20Favored%20to%20Win%20GOP%20Nomination%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted inalternative voting systems
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>,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
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
--
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/20160227/d64cbe18/attachment.html>
View list directory