[EL] ELB News and Commentary 1/19/16
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Tue Jan 19 08:10:32 PST 2016
“Partisanship Barges In on John Lewis’s Dream”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79123>
Posted onJanuary 19, 2016 8:09 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79123>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Fascinating John Harwood NYT interview
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/us/politics/partisanship-barges-in-on-john-lewiss-dream.html?ref=politics>with
Rep. Lewis on what I’ve called the“race or party”
<http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/01/race-or-party-how-courts-should-think-about-republican-efforts-to-make-it-harder-to-vote-in-north-carolina-and-elsewhere/>question.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79123&title=%26%238220%3BPartisanship%20Barges%20In%20on%20John%20Lewis%E2%80%99s%20Dream%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inpolitical parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,political polarization
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“New Paper: How to Protect Election Integrity Without
Disenfranchising Voters” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79121>
Posted onJanuary 19, 2016 8:07 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79121>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Brennan Center
<http://www.brennancenter.org/press-release/new-paper-how-protect-election-integrity-without-disenfranchising-voters>:
/Election Integrity: A Pro Voter Agenda Is Latest in “New Ideas for
a New Democracy” Series/
As America heads into another presidential election year in the
midst of pitched battles over the right to vote, the Brennan Center
for Justice at NYU School of Law today released a six-part agenda
<https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/election-integrity-pro-voter-agenda> to
secure our elections from misconduct while maintaining fair access
to the ballot.
Since the 2010 election, 21 states have new voting restrictions —
and 15 will have them in effect for the first time in a presidential
election
<http://www.brennancenter.org/new-voting-restrictions-2010-election> in
2016. Yet many of these rules address only one form of misconduct,
in-person voter impersonation, which is vanishingly rare.
The clamor over voting laws should not obscure a fundamental shared
truth: American elections should be secure and free of misconduct,
the Center argues in /Election Integrity: A Pro-Voter Agenda/
<https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/election-integrity-pro-voter-agenda>.
Throughout our nation’s history, however, most fraud has been
committed by insiders, not individuals. And, in recent years, states
have gone too far by passing voting rules that make it harder for
many Americans to participate.
The Brennan Center’s paper outlines a six-part agenda to target
fraud risks as they actually exist — without unduly disenfranchising
eligible citizens. Proposals include plans to modernize voter
registration, increase security of voting machines, and adopt only
common-sense voter ID laws.
“We don’t have to choose between election integrity and election
access. In fact, free and fair access is necessary for an election
to have integrity,” *wrote report author Myrna Pérez, deputy
director of the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program*. “It is vital
that we protect voters from the /real/ threats to the integrity of
elections. Fortunately, it is possible to protect election integrity
without disenfranchising eligible voters.”
Here is the six-part plan:
1. Modernize Voter Registration to Improve Voter Rolls
2. Ensure Security and Reliability of Our Voting Machines
3. Do Not Implement Internet Voting Systems Until Security is Proven
4. Adopt Only Common-Sense Voter Identification Proposals
5. Increase Security of Mail-In Ballots
6. Protect Against Insider Wrongdoing
The paper examines genuine risks to the security of elections,
highlights current and future vulnerabilities, and recommends ways
to reduce each risk.
Read the full report
<https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/election-integrity-pro-voter-agenda>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79121&title=%26%238220%3BNew%20Paper%3A%20How%20to%20Protect%20Election%20Integrity%20Without%20Disenfranchising%20Voters%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Editorial: Jolly’s smart shot at campaign finance reform”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79119>
Posted onJanuary 19, 2016 8:01 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79119>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Tampa Bay Times:
<http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-jollys-smart-shot-at-campaign-finance-reform/2261790>
U.S. Rep. David Jolly has a big idea in a little four-page bill. The
Indian Shores Republican wants to ban federal officeholders from
directly seeking campaign contributions. It’s a long shot in an
election-year Congress whose members are obsessed with raising money
and self-preservation, but it is a serious proposal from a serious
lawmaker that deserves careful consideration.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79119&title=%26%238220%3BEditorial%3A%20Jolly%26%238217%3Bs%20smart%20shot%20at%20campaign%20finance%20reform%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“How Big Money Works in the Shadows”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79117>
Posted onJanuary 19, 2016 8:00 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79117>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here is theChicago Tribune
version<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-money-politics-jeb-bush-super-pac-citizens-united-20160118-story.html>of
mySunday Outlook WaPo piece
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/money-cant-buy-jeb-bush-the-white-house-but-it-still-skews-politics/2016/01/14/7c920780-b554-11e5-9388-466021d971de_story.html>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79117&title=%26%238220%3BHow%20Big%20Money%20Works%20in%20the%20Shadows%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“New Demos Report Details How Automatic Voter Registration Could
Register 27 Million of America’s Missing Voters”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79115>
Posted onJanuary 19, 2016 7:57 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79115>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Release:
America faces a crisis of low political participation. The current
voter registration system unnecessarily burden tens of millions of
potential voters–particularly people of color, young people, and
people with low incomes, such that one out of four potential
voters–51 million eligible citizens–are not registered to vote. A
new Demosreport
<http://www.demos.org/publication/automatic-voter-registration-finding-americas-missing-voters>finds
that Automatic Voter Registration (AVR) is a simple solution that
can transform voter registration from a barrier to a gateway to
participation.
In*/Automatic Voter Registration: Finding America’s Missing Voters
<http://www.demos.org/publication/automatic-voter-registration-finding-americas-missing-voters>/*,*Liz
Kennedy*, Demos Campaign Strategist and Counsel,*Lew Daly,*Demos
Director of Policy and Research, and*Brenda Wright*, Demos Vice
President of Policy and Legal Strategies, provide a roadmap for
policymakers and show how automatic voter registration (AVR) can
transform voter registration from a barrier to a gateway to
engagement. They find that AVR could grant approximately 27 million
people access to elections and help close registration gaps across
age, income, and racial groups.
“Our current system of voter registration creates barriers to voting
that exclude tens of millions of potential voters from the political
process,” said Kennedy. “AVR is a common-sense reform and an
essential step to ensuring all eligible people can have their voices
heard. AVR can help create the free, fair, and accessible democracy
we deserve by shifting voter registration from a barrier to a
gateway to engagement for America’s millions of missing voters.”
Building on the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and
other voter registration reforms like Same-Day Registration, AVR
improves the overall effectiveness of the voter registration system.
State election officials receive information already on file with a
variety of government agencies to identify persons who are eligible
to vote and add them to the voter rolls, or update their voter
information, upon confirming their eligibility and offering an
opportunity to decline registration.
Further, adding currently unregistered eligible voters to the rolls
through AVR would put them on the radar for elections officials,
candidates, parties, and voter mobilization groups, allowing them to
be included in the outreach and education efforts shown to have a
significant impact on voter turnout. Finally, shifting to an AVR
system would free up resources that are currently being invested in
voter registration efforts to be redirected toward voter education
and mobilization.
Other key findings include:
* 4.1 million Americans who tried to register to vote were
prevented due to registration deadlines. Another 1.9 million
could not add themselves to the voter rolls because they did not
know where or how to register.
* Registration is key to turnout: overall, while the rate of voter
turnout among all eligible citizens was 64 percent in 2008 and
62 percent in 2012, the rate of voter turnout for people
registered to vote was 90 percent in 2008 and 87 percent in 2012.
* There is a significant racial and class disparity in voter
registration. Higher-income Americans vote at nearly double the
rate of the lowest-income Americans. 41 percent of eligible
Latino citizens, 44 percent of eligible Asian American citizens,
46 percent of eligible young adults (18-24 year olds), and 37
percent of eligible people with low incomes (under $30,000)
aren’t registered to vote.
* Voter turnout gaps are much smaller for registered members of
low-turnout groups compared to the groups as a whole. Turnout
inequalities shrink dramatically for Latinos and Asian-Americans
when they are registered to vote, particularly in presidential
election years.
“Young people, people of color, and people with low incomes vote at
lower rates, and in many cases much lower rates, than older and more
affluent white voters,” said Daly. “Automatic Voter Registration, if
widely adopted, is major step forward for a more inclusive democracy
that gives voice to the growing diversity of our country.”
The authors explain that a properly-designed AVR system will not
only empower eligible citizens to vote—it will also significantly
decrease the administrative errors that currently plague the
registration process. The report lays out how Automatic Voter
Registration works, and addresses important considerations that need
to be addressed in designing an inclusive, protective system.
The authors conclude by looking at how AVR can be aligned with other
voter registration policies, such as online registration,
pre-registration of 16- and 17-year-olds, Same-Day (or Election Day)
Registration, and voter registration through government agencies
under the National Voter Registration Act. They explain how each of
these advances in election administration can help prepare a state
for Automatic Voter Registration and can work alongside automatic
registration to achieve universal registration of all eligible
American citizens. They provide a 50-state matrix indicating where
these “building blocks” already exist, to assist policymakers and
advocates to map the future of AVR on a state-by-state basis.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79115&title=%26%238220%3BNew%20Demos%20Report%20Details%20How%20Automatic%20Voter%20Registration%20Could%20Register%2027%20Million%20of%20America%E2%80%99s%20Missing%20Voters%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Plutocrats United: The Impact of Citizens United Isn’t Simply About
Corruption… It’s About Political Equality”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79113>
Posted onJanuary 19, 2016 7:56 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79113>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I spoke with IVN
<http://ivn.us/2016/01/19/plutocrats-united-impact-citizens-united-isnt-simply-corruption-political-equality/>about
my new book.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79113&title=%26%238220%3BPlutocrats%20United%3A%20The%20Impact%20of%20Citizens%20United%20Isn%E2%80%99t%20Simply%20About%20Corruption%E2%80%A6%20It%E2%80%99s%20About%20Political%20Equality%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
Breaking: #SCOTUS Won’t Hear Case on Government Contractor Campaign
Contributions Ban <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79111>
Posted onJanuary 19, 2016 7:52 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79111>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Courtdenied cert.
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/15-428.htm>today
in a case in which the D.C. Circuit en banc hadunanimously upheld
<http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/miller-op-below.pdf>federal
law banning direct campaign contributions to candidates by federal
contractors. (I had missed that intoday’s orders
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011916zor_l5gm.pdf>because
the name changed from Wagner v. FEC to Miller v. FEC, but Ron Collins at
his indispensable FAN at Concurring Opinionsnoticed it
<http://concurringopinions.com/archives/2016/01/fan-93-2-first-amendment-news-scotus-denies-review-in-federal-contractors-political-contributions-case.html>.)
(There’sstill a question<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74113>about
whether the ban applies to contractor contributions to super pacs.)
Why did the Court decline to hear the case, despite its general
hostility to campaign finance limits? As I explain in Election Law’s
Path in the Roberts Court’s First Decade: A Sharp Right Turn But with
Speed Bumps and Surprising Twists (draft in progress, Nov. 2015
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2639902>), which
I’ll be presenting next month ata Stanford Law Review symposium
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78920>, “The Roberts Court is
fundamentally conservative, but for jurisprudential, temperamental, or
strategic reasons Justices holding the balance of power appear to prefer
incrementalism to radical change. Mandatory appellate jurisdiction
appears the best way to force the Roberts’ Court’s hand, and it often
but not always leads to a conservative result.” This contractor case,
unlike theupcoming soft money case
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77857>, did not come up to the Court on
mandatory appellate jurisdiction, and so once again the Court took a
pass. Watch the soft money case.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79111&title=Breaking%3A%20%23SCOTUS%20Won%26%238217%3Bt%20Hear%20Case%20on%20Government%20Contractor%20Campaign%20Contributions%20Ban&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Why the GOP Primary Could Be Even Crazier Than You Think”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79104>
Posted onJanuary 19, 2016 7:41 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79104>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ben Ginsberg
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/2016-gop-primary-crazier-than-you-think-213542>writes
for Politico.
I interviewed Ben about all of this for the ELB Podcast:
#9 Ben Ginsberg <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78868>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79104&title=%26%238220%3BWhy%20the%20GOP%20Primary%20Could%20Be%20Even%20Crazier%20Than%20You%20Think%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inpolitical parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,primaries
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
Jan 22 Plutocrats United Event in DC, with Trevor Potter
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78396>
Posted onJanuary 19, 2016 7:35 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78396>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
[Note that this event will be held at UCDC, NOT at CLC]
Announcement
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/document/plutocrats-united-campaign-money-supreme-court-and-distortion-american-elections>:
Plutocrats United: Campaign Money, the Supreme Court, and the
Distortion of American Elections
Dec 16, 2015
The Campaign Legal Center, along with the American Constitution
Society and UCDC Law, is hosting an event on January 22, 2016:
*Plutocrats United: Campaign Money, the Supreme Court, and the
Distortion of American Elections*. Please join us for a
presentation by Richard L. Hasen with Trevor Potter as moderator and
commentator.
Friday, January 22, 2016, 12:00 pm – 1:45 pm, University of
California Washington Center, 1608 Rhode Island Ave. NW Washington,
DC 20036.
Lunch will be provided at 11:30 to those who RSVP by January 18th.
RSVP at info at campaignlegalcenter.org or call (202) 736-2200.
Contact Tim Duong at tduong at campaignlegalcenter.org with any questions.
Download the flyer below.
PDF DOWNLOAD
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/sites/default/files/UCDC%20Flyer%203.pdf>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78396&title=Jan%2022%20Plutocrats%20United%20Event%20in%20DC%2C%20with%20Trevor%20Potter&description=>
Posted incampaign finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Plutocrats United
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
NYC: “Plutocrats United: A Book Talk with Professor Richard Hasen”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78230>
Posted onJanuary 19, 2016 7:33 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78230>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
[Updated and bumped to the top for Thursday’s event]
My book tour event
<https://www.brennancenter.org/event/plutocrats-united-book-talk-professor-richard-hasen>in
New York, on January 21 (full<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77845>book
tour info):
/The Brennan Center for Justice presents:/
Plutocrats United
/A Book Talk with Professor Richard Hasen/
*Thursday, January 21, 2016
6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.*
6:00 p.m./Registration and Reception/
6:30 p.m./Program/
*Greenberg Lounge, Vanderbilt Hall
NYU School of Law
40 Washington Square South
New York, NY 10012*
/introductory remarks by:/
*Wendy Weiser*
Director, Democracy Program, Brennan Center for Justice
Campaign financing is one of today’s most divisive political issues.
The left asserts that the electoral process is rife with corruption.
The right protests that the real aim of campaign limits is to
suppress political activity and protect incumbents. Meanwhile, money
flows freely on both sides. In/Plutocrats United/, Richard Hasen
argues that both left and right avoid the key issue of the new
Citizens United era: balancing political inequality with free
speech. (Yale University Press)
Join the Brennan Center for a candid and engaging discussion with
the author of this eye-opening new book.
*Please RSVP by filling out the form below or clickinghere
<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1ValAKVSQNp0YNWyER6PeY4r9pU0zBQdmYqGiF-xw5zQ/viewform>.
If you have any questions, please contact Brennan Center Events
Manager, Jafreen Uddin, at jafreen.uddin at nyu.edu
<mailto:jafreen.uddin at nyu.edu>or 646.292.8345.*
UPDATE:
Second Brennan Center Event on Plutocrats United
This Jan 21
lunch<https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/workshop-plutocrats-united>workshop
(by invitation) may interest academics, law students, and policy folks,
and it will feature Yasmin Dawood, Janai Nelson, Nick Stephanopoulos and me:
Plutocrats United
/A Brennan Center Workshop/
*Thursday, January 21, 2016
12:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m.*
*Brennan Center for Justice
161 Avenue of the Americas, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10013*
Last October, the New York Timesreported
<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-election-super-pac-donors.html?_r=0>that
just 158 families contributed nearly half of all early money in the
2016 presidential race. A Princeton political scientistrecently
concluded <http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9836.html>that the
preferences of most Americans rarely are reflected in government policy.
Against this challenging terrain, we believe the time has come for a
fundamental rethinking of how we approach campaign finance
regulation. On January 21, 2016,*the Brennan Center will host an
invitation-only workshop*to discuss Professor Rick Hasen’s most
recent contribution to the debate – his forthcoming new
bookPlutocrats United: Campaign Money, the Supreme Court, and the
Distortion of American Elections
<http://yalepress.yale.edu/OtherVendors.asp?isbn=9780300212457>. He
will be joined by several other leading academics in the field.
In/Plutocrats/, Hasen explores how our campaign finance system
reduces political equality and diminishes democracy. He argues that
advocates on all sides have misunderstood the greatest challenge
posed by/Citizens United/– the need to balance political inequality
with free speech. With the goal of promoting creative and practical
thinking, we are inviting a diverse group of advocates, activists
and academics to discuss these critically important and timely issues.
*To request an invitation, contact*
*Ava Mehta atava.mehta at nyu.edu <mailto:ava.mehta at nyu.edu>or (646)
292-8371.*
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78230&title=NYC%3A%20%26%238220%3BPlutocrats%20United%3A%20A%20Book%20Talk%20with%20Professor%20Richard%20Hasen%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Plutocrats United
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Nurses‘ union head claims ’massive misstep’ by Clinton”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79102>
Posted onJanuary 19, 2016 7:28 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79102>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politico
<http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/california/2016/01/8588379/nurses-union-head-claims-massive-misstep-clinton>:
RoseAnn DeMoro, head of the 185,000 member Oakland-based National
Nurses United — the nation’s largest female-dominated union — says
Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign has made a “massive misstep”
by characterizing the union’s support of her Democratic challenger
Bernie Sanders as “dark money.”
“I think Hillary is on a slippery slope, calling unions ‘SuperPACs’
and ‘dark money,'” DeMoro told POLITICO Monday. “She relies on labor
as a partial funding base. … What it says is that they’re desperate.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79102&title=%26%238220%3BNurses%E2%80%98%20union%20head%20claims%20%E2%80%99massive%20misstep%26%238217%3B%20by%20Clinton%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
Breaking: #SCOTUS Denies Contempt in Hawaii Election Case, Turns
Down Obamacare Origination Clause Challenge
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79100>
Posted onJanuary 19, 2016 7:25 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79100>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
While attention rightly will be focused on the Supreme Court’s decision
today to hear the challenge to the Obama immigration orders
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/us/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-challenge-to-obama-immigration-actions.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0>,
two election law points of note intoday’s order list.
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011916zor_l5gm.pdf>
1. First, the Court refused to hold in contempt the group that is
holding a convention related to Native Hawaiian rights. For those
following this issue, the Court earlier enjoined an election to this
convention body, which was challenged on grounds that it violated
the 15th amendment’s prohibition on the use of race in voting. In
response, those holding the convention announced that all candidates
who were running for office may serve as delegates to the
convention. (The Oprah election
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78355>.) Opponents then argued that
holding the convention itself with these delegatesconstituted a
contempt <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78716>of the Court’s earlier
order, Today the Court, without comment, denied the contempt
finding. This seems like the right call.
2. The Court denied cert. in the /Sissel v. United States/case, which
argued that the Obamacare law violated that part of the Constitution
which requires that bills raising revenue originate in the House of
Representatives.I thought this case had a chance for review,
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=75125>given the very interesting
Judge Kavanaugh dissent from the D.C. Circuit’s refusal to take the
case en banc.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79100&title=Breaking%3A%20%23SCOTUS%20Denies%20Contempt%20in%20Hawaii%20Election%20Case%2C%20Turns%20Down%20Obamacare%20Origination%20Clause%20Challenge&description=>
Posted inlegislation and legislatures
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,voting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
“It May Be Time to Resolve the Meaning of ‘Natural Born’”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79098>
Posted onJanuary 18, 2016 1:04 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79098>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Carl Hulse
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/us/politics/it-may-be-time-to-resolve-the-meaning-of-natural-born.html>for
the NYT.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79098&title=%26%238220%3BIt%20May%20Be%20Time%20to%20Resolve%20the%20Meaning%20of%20%E2%80%98Natural%20Born%E2%80%99%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
Quote of the Day <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79096>
Posted onJanuary 18, 2016 11:36 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79096>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
“The $10,800 contributions is my lane.”
—Heidi Nelson Cruz
<http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/18/us/politics/ted-cruz-wife-campaign.html>,
talking to the NYT about fundraising for her husband, Sen. Ted Cruz
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79096&title=Quote%20of%20the%20Day&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160119/94daf58d/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/20160119/94daf58d/attachment.png>
View list directory