[EL] ELB News and Commentary 1/21/16

Wed Jan 20 19:39:30 PST 2016

    Sen. McCain Backs Sen. McConnell in Opposition to President Obama
    Executive Order on Contractor Campaign Disclsoure
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79181>

Posted onJanuary 20, 2016 7:26 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79181>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Roll Call: 
<http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/mcconnell-counts-down-days-until-obama-leaves/?dcz=>

    In this particular battle, McConnell may find common ground with
    Sen. John McCain. The Republican from Arizona has sparred with the
    current majority leader on campaign finance questions, with
    McConnell leading the charge against the McCain-Feingold campaign
    finance law.

    But asked if there should be White House action on campaign finance,
    McCain said, “of course not.”

    “It wouldn’t matter if I totally supported it, he shouldn’t act by
    executive order,” McCain said.  “All of us take an oath to uphold
    the Constitution of the United States. What he does is he gives
    ammunition to the opponents, and then they have great difficulty
    when it comes time to sit down and work on things. If he’s going to
    use an executive order, it’s probably going to have to go right to
    the courts.”

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79181&title=Sen.%20McCain%20Backs%20Sen.%20McConnell%20in%20Opposition%20to%20President%20Obama%20Executive%20Order%20on%20Contractor%20Campaign%20Disclsoure&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

    “Missouri House Republicans advance voter ID bills over Democratic
    opposition” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79179>

Posted onJanuary 20, 2016 7:13 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79179>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

KC Star 
<http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article55668365.html>:

    The Missouri House on Wednesday gave initial approval to a pair of
    bills that would require Missourians to present a photo ID to vote
    in public elections.

    Both bills are expected to pass the House and be sent to the Senate
    on Thursday.

    The first bill wouldamend the state’s constitution
    <http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HJR53&year=2016&code=R>,
    upon voter approval, to allow Missouri to require a photo ID to cast
    a ballot. The proposal, sponsored by Rep.Tony Dugger
    <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?year=2016&district=141>, a
    Wright County Republican, is a response to a 2006 Missouri Supreme
    Court ruling that found a voter ID law unconstitutional.

    The second bill, sponsored by Rep.Justin Alferman
    <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?year=2016&district=061>, a
    Hermann Republican, would limitforms of acceptable identification at
    polling locations to government-issued photo IDs
    <http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HB1631&year=2016&code=R>.
    These would include non-expired driver’s and non-driver’s licenses
    and military IDs. It would not include things like university IDs.

Gee, I wonder why no university ids?  So hard to figure.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79179&title=%26%238220%3BMissouri%20House%20Republicans%20advance%20voter%20ID%20bills%20over%20Democratic%20opposition%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>

    “Black Voters in Fayette County, Georgia Win Historic Opportunity to
    Elect Candidates of Choice and Settle Voting Rights Act Case”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79177>

Posted onJanuary 20, 2016 7:05 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79177>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Press release 
<http://www.naacpldf.org/press-release/black-voters-fayette-county-georgia-win-historic-opportunity-elect-candidates-choice>:

    The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), and
    co-counsel Neil Bradley, on behalf of the Georgia State Conference
    of the NAACP, Fayette County Branch of the NAACP, and ten Black
    voters, have successfully settled a transformative Voting Rights Act
    (VRA) lawsuit against the Board of Commissioners (BOC), Board of
    Education (BOE), and other officials of Fayette County, Georgia.
    Thesettlement
    <http://www.naacpldf.org/document/fayette-settlement-key-points>in/Georgia
    State Conference of the NAACP, et al. v. Fayette County Board of
    Commissioners, et al/
    <http://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/georgia-state-conference-naacp-et-al-v-fayette-county-board-commissioners-et-al>/./follows
    a more than four-year fight to provide Black voters in Fayette
    County with the equal opportunity to elect members to county government.

    LDF filed this 2011 challenge to Fayette County’s discriminatory
    at-large method of electing all five members to the BOC and BOE
    under Section 2 of the VRA. Until this lawsuit,/no/Black person of
    any political affiliation had ever been elected to either body, even
    though Black residents comprise approximately 20% of Fayette
    County’s population and consistently vote together in countywide
    elections. Rather, white voters, who comprise approximately 80% of
    the electorate, controlled all five seats on each board.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79177&title=%26%238220%3BBlack%20Voters%20in%20Fayette%20County%2C%20Georgia%20Win%20Historic%20Opportunity%20to%20Elect%20Candidates%20of%20Choice%20and%20Settle%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20Case%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>

    Read an Excerpt from the Introduction to Plutocrats United
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79174>

Posted onJanuary 20, 2016 4:03 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79174>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Posted here, 
<http://billmoyers.com/story/corruptions-not-the-problem-its-inequality/>at 
BillMoyers.com.

And if you want to read more, here’sthe link to buy the book 
<http://www.amazon.com/Plutocrats-United-Campaign-Distortion-Elections/dp/0300212453/>.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79174&title=Read%20an%20Excerpt%20from%20the%20Introduction%20to%20Plutocrats%20United&description=>
Posted incampaign finance 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Plutocrats United 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>

    “FEC Complaint Filed Against Senator Ted Cruz and His 2012 Senate
    Campaign for Failure to Report Loans from Goldman Sachs and Citibank
    and Possible Improper Use of Assets to Secure the Loans”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79171>

Posted onJanuary 20, 2016 3:41 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79171>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Release 
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/news/press-releases/fec-complaint-filed-clc-regarding-cruz-bank-loans>:**

    Today, the Campaign Legal Center, with Democracy 21, filed
    acomplaint
    <http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/sites/default/files/FEC%20Complaint%20Against%20Cruz_0.pdf>with
    the Federal Election Commission (FEC) urging the FEC to investigate
    apparent violations of campaign finance laws by Senator Ted Cruz and
    the 2012 Cruz for Senate Campaign relating to loans he obtained from
    Goldman Sachs and Citibank for use in his 2012 Senate campaign.
    According to the complaint, Senator Cruz failed to report the loans
    to the FEC, as required by law, and may have used a portion of his
    wife’s assets to secure the loan resulting in the campaign accepting
    excessive contributions.

    The complaint asks the FEC to formally investigate the apparent
    violations and seek appropriate sanctions

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79171&title=%26%238220%3BFEC%20Complaint%20Filed%20Against%20Senator%20Ted%20Cruz%20and%20His%202012%20Senate%20Campaign%20%20for%20Failure%20to%20Report%20Loans%20from%20Goldman%20Sachs%20and%20Citibank%20and%20Possible%20Improper%20Use%20of%20Assets%20to%20Secure%20the%20Loans%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

    Richard Alarcon Gets New Trial in CA Residency Case
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79169>

Posted onJanuary 20, 2016 3:37 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79169>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The unananimous, unpublished Court of Appeal opinion ishere 
<http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B260234.PDF>. The basis for 
the reversal (for Alarcon and his wife) was instructional error: the 
court held that the use of a mandatory presumption impermissibly shifted 
the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defendants.

The government can now appeal further, try the Alarcons again, or drop 
the case.

UPDATE: Here isthe LA Times story 
<http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-alarcon-conviction-overturned-20160120-story.html>.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79169&title=Richard%20Alarcon%20Gets%20New%20Trial%20in%20CA%20Residency%20Case&description=>
Posted inresidency <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=38>

    CA Legislature Wants CA Supreme Court to Put Anti-Citizens United
    Petition on the November Ballot <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79166>

Posted onJanuary 20, 2016 11:47 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79166>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

I’ve written<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78692>about at CA Supreme 
Court decision holding that the CA legislature had the right to put on 
the ballot asking voters if the CA legislature should urge Congress to 
pass a constitutional amendment “overturning” Citizens United. (I might 
support theballot measure 
<http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0106-hasen-constitutional-convention-campaign-finance-20160106-story.html>even 
though I oppose such an amendment.)

In that opinion, the CA Supreme Court held that the 2014 measure should 
have appeared on the ballot, and the legislature could put a new measure 
on the 2016 ballot.

Well now the state legislaturehas petitioned the Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/S220289_PFR_LegislatureoftheStateofCalifornia.pdf>to 
direct the Secretary of State to put the 2014 measure on the 2016 
ballot, to avoid taking a new vote on this issue (not sure if the 
politics make it harder to pass such a measure now, but I don’t see why 
they would).

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79166&title=CA%20Legislature%20Wants%20CA%20Supreme%20Court%20to%20Put%20Anti-Citizens%20United%20Petition%20on%20the%20November%20Ballot&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

-- 
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/20160120/92ce1b24/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/20160120/92ce1b24/attachment.png>