[EL] more news 1/5/16
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Tue Jan 5 12:53:55 PST 2016
“Do We Need a Constitutional Convention on Campaign Finance?”
(Spoiler Alert: No!) <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78734>
Posted onJanuary 5, 2016 12:52 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78734>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I have writtenthis
oped<http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0106-hasen-constitutional-convention-campaign-finance-20160106-story.html>for
the LA Times. It begins:
Should the United States convene a constitutional convention to
clean up the campaign finance mess created by the U.S. Supreme
Court? My answer is absolutely not. That’s neither a realistic goal
nor a wise way to curb the influence of the wealthy over our
elections. Nevertheless, I’m pleased that the California Supreme
Court this weekgreenlighted a scheme
<http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S220289.PDF>to put that
question on the ballot come November, and I may even vote “yes.”…
To recap: A constitutional convention could spiral out of control,
proposed amendment language so far is deeply problematic, and the
Legislature may have self-interested reasons for including a
campaign finance question on the ballot. Nonetheless, there’s a good
reason for voters to support this flawed proposal.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78734&title=%26%238220%3BDo%20We%20Need%20a%20Constitutional%20Convention%20on%20Campaign%20Finance%3F%26%238221%3B%20%28Spoiler%20Alert%3A%20No%21%29&description=>
Posted incampaign finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Plutocrats United
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Holding public officials accountable with Twitter and Politwoops”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78732>
Posted onJanuary 5, 2016 12:46 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78732>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
It’s back. Yay.
<https://blog.twitter.com/2015/holding-public-officials-accountable-with-twitter-and-politwoops>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78732&title=%26%238220%3BHolding%20public%20officials%20accountable%20with%20Twitter%20and%20Politwoops%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
Princeton University Press to Run Election 2016 Blog
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78730>
Posted onJanuary 5, 2016 12:40 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78730>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bookmark this!
<http://blog.press.princeton.edu/2016/01/05/pup-to-launch-election-2016-blog/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78730&title=Princeton%20University%20Press%20to%20Run%20Election%202016%20Blog&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Supreme Court, Meet Reality” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78728>
Posted onJanuary 5, 2016 12:37 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78728>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Larry Noble:
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/news/blog/supreme-court-meet-reality>
Recently, it wasreported
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/citizens-united-anthony-kennedy_5637c481e4b0631799134b92>that
in an interview at Harvard Law School, Supreme Court Justice Anthony
Kennedy commented that campaign finance disclosure is “not working
the way it should.” Justice Kennedy’s statement provides an
important insight into why the Supreme Court’s recent campaign
finance decisions are undermining our democracy. These decisions
have been based on how five Justices think the campaign finance
laws/should/be working, which is far from the reality of how they
are working. Watching the 2016 elections unfold, it is hard not to
wonder whether any of these Justices will rethink their assumptions
about money in politics or whether our democracy will continue to
suffer from a constitutional jurisprudence based on wishful thinking.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78728&title=%26%238220%3BSupreme%20Court%2C%20Meet%20Reality%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
CA Secretary of State Urges Legislature to Pass Anti-Citizens United
Measure <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78726>
Posted onJanuary 5, 2016 12:35 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78726>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
This statement from CA SOS Alex Padilla seems inappropriate to me.
Padilla is the person who counts the votes, not one who should take
positions on ballot measures or candidates:
Secretary of State Alex Padilla Statement on Proposition 49 Ruling
California Secretary of State Alex Padilla has issued the following
statement:
“Today, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion in Howard
Jarvis Tax Payers Association v. Padilla. In a 6-1 majority opinion,
the Court held that the Legislature may submit a nonbinding advisory
question to voters seeking input as to whether the United States
Congress should propose an amendment to the United States
Constitution that would overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission and other related judicial rulings.” “The Court held that
the advisory measure, Proposition 49, slated to be submitted to
voters at the November 2014 election, was a constitutional exercise
of the Legislature’s investigative powers and, moreover, that
consulting with the public is an important part of this country’s
tradition and practices that has often sought the advice of the
electorate.” “The Court’s opinion charts a path for the Legislature
‘to pass an identical measure directing placement of the same
advisory question on a future ballot.’ Since the Court has now
determined that Proposition 49 is constitutional and a vote on this
issue has now been delayed for over a year, it is my hope that the
Legislature takes action to place the measure on the ballot in 2016.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78726&title=CA%20Secretary%20of%20State%20Urges%20Legislature%20to%20Pass%20Anti-Citizens%20United%20Measure&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,election
administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
Ed Blum’s Regret <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78724>
Posted onJanuary 5, 2016 12:00 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78724>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Holy Freaking Cow
<http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/05/edward-blum-voting-rights-act-civil-rights-affirmative-action>!
Blum should have thought of this before he put together the team to
decimate the Voting Rights Act. Andrew Gumbel in The Guardian:
Some of Blum’s cases have had such an impact that even he has been
taken aback. Nowhere is that truer than with Shelby County v Holder,
acase
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/shelby-county-v-holder/>he
sponsored that in 2013 led the supreme court to overturn a key
provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Blum told the Guardian he
has worried over the fallout from that ruling, which spurred
conservative legislators inTexas
<http://www.votetexas.gov/register-to-vote/need-id/>,North Carolina
<http://www.advancementproject.org/pages/whos-affected-by-north-carolinas-voter-suppression-law>and
elsewhere to revive laws that the Justice Department had previously
blocked or was expected to block on the grounds that they were
vehicles for minority vote suppression.
Those laws have introduced draconian voter ID requirements, cut back
on early voting, and eliminated same-day registration.
“I think about it a lot, I worry about it a lot. I agonise over
this,” Blum told the Guardian. “It may be that one or two of the
states that used to be covered by Section 5 has gone too far.”
Civil rights organizations and good government groups say Blum
should have anticipated these effects, because legislators made
little secret of their intentions and, in North Carolina, snapped
into actionwithin hours
<http://www.wral.com/nc-senator-voter-id-bill-moving-ahead-with-ruling/12591669/>of
the supreme court publishing its ruling.
If only he’d have more regret about /Evenwel/, /Fisher/, etc.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78724&title=Ed%20Blum%26%238217%3Bs%20Regret&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
Michigan Gov. Signs Bill Eliminating Straight Ticket Party Voting,
Calls for No Excuse Absentee Balloting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78722>
Posted onJanuary 5, 2016 8:35 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78722>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
See here.
<http://www.boynegazette.com/2016/michigan-gov-rick-snyder-gets-rid-of-straight-party-ticket-voting-option/uncategorized/74308>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78722&title=Michigan%20Gov.%20Signs%20Bill%20Eliminating%20Straight%20Ticket%20Party%20Voting%2C%20Calls%20for%20No%20Excuse%20Absentee%20Balloting&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
--
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/20160105/57fd477a/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/20160105/57fd477a/attachment.png>
View list directory