[EL] ELB News and Commentary 6/6/16
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Mon Jun 6 07:25:05 PDT 2016
“Ideas on Reconciling Critics of the Presidential Primary Process”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83417>
Posted onJune 6, 2016 7:22 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83417>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Al Hunt:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/06/us/politics/presidential-elections-primary-process.html?ref=politics>
It’s rare that President Obama and Reince Priebus, the Republican
National Committee chairman, agree. In recent weeks, they both have
said that the presidential nominating process is not rigged.
They are right. But that hasn’t stopped those displeased with the
results — not only establishment Republicans but also Democrats who
support Senator Bernie Sanders — from insisting on changing the
rules for the next election.
Some tweaks are always in order, but both sides are trying to craft
procedures that would have benefited them this time. As with
generals fighting the last war, experience shows this rarely works
and often backfires.
“Every time someone tries to game out this system,” said Benjamin
Ginsberg, a leading Republican election lawyer, “the great law of
unintended consequences rears its head.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83417&title=%26%238220%3BIdeas%20on%20Reconciling%20Critics%20of%20the%20Presidential%20Primary%20Process%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inpolitical parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,primaries
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
The Atlantic Talks Voting Rights with Brennan Center’s Michael
Waldman <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83415>
Posted onJune 6, 2016 7:19 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83415>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Interview.
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/a-tipping-point-on-voting-rights/485336/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83415&title=The%20Atlantic%20Talks%20Voting%20Rights%20with%20Brennan%20Center%26%238217%3Bs%20Michael%20Waldman&description=>
Posted inThe Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Did this congressional campaign break federal election law?”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83413>
Posted onJune 6, 2016 7:18 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83413>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
LAT reports.
<http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-isadore-hall-general-election-primary-spending-20160605-snap-story.html>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83413&title=%26%238220%3BDid%20this%20congressional%20campaign%20break%20federal%20election%20law%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Puerto Rico Primary Marred By Long Lines, Chaos, Accusations”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83411>
Posted onJune 6, 2016 7:01 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83411>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Think Progress reports.
<http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/06/06/3784948/puerto-rico-primary-chaos/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83411&title=%26%238220%3BPuerto%20Rico%20Primary%20Marred%20By%20Long%20Lines%2C%20Chaos%2C%20Accusations%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,political parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,primaries
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
“The Christian Right Mastermind Behind Citizens United Says It’s
Good for Democracy” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83409>
Posted onJune 6, 2016 6:54 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83409>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Daily Beast:
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/05/the-christian-right-mastermind-behind-citizens-united-says-it-s-good-for-democracy.html>
When you think of the Christian Right and politics, probably you
think ofabortion
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2016/03/23/christian-right-says-no-means-yes-in-obamacare-fight-at-supreme-court.html>,homosexuality
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2016/03/06/meet-harlem-s-hateful-con-man-preacher.html>,
andreligious exemptions
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2015/11/04/houston-s-anti-gay-rollback-is-first-of-227-battles-across-the-country.html>.
You probably don’t think of campaign finance.
James Bopp does.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83409&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20Christian%20Right%20Mastermind%20Behind%20Citizens%20United%20Says%20It%E2%80%99s%20Good%20for%20Democracy%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,election
law biz <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>
“Big Money Rearranges Its Election Bets” and a Bauer Retort
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83407>
Posted onJune 6, 2016 6:51 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83407>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT editorial:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/05/opinion/sunday/big-money-rearranges-its-election-bets.html?_r=0>
One constant is the vast amount of money sluicing through the
political system in what is certain to be the most expensive
election in the nation’s history. Experts estimate that campaign
spending, which has risen inexorably in recent years, will easily
surpass the $6.28 billion record set in the2012 federal elections
<https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/cost.php?version=meter+at+0&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click>and
could conceivably reach $9 billion, much of it for political
advertising.
Bauer:
<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2016/06/campaign-finance-threat-darkness/>
What the/Times/does not account for—and what may pose the largest
problem for reform driven by anxieties about volume and its salutary
use—are the stakes that parties, political groups, activists, and
others may perceive in the contests on which so much is spent.
The/Times/should be sensitive to this point. Consider its own
editorials in the Presidential race. It has opined that the
Republican Party has stepped into“darkness”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/04/opinion/its-donald-trumps-party-now.html>with
the presumptive choice of Donald Trump, a candidate who it accuses
of running on“outright falsehoods,”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/opinion/donald-trump-to-world-im-willing-to-walk.html>of
lacking any“grasp of the complexity of the world,”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/opinion/donald-trump-to-world-im-willing-to-walk.html>of
posinga “danger” voters should recognize
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/09/opinion/mr-trump-reopens-the-wounds-of-a-hate-crime.html>,
and of “inexperience paired with intellectual lazinessthat would
make him a disastrous president
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/26/opinion/the-donald-trump-pygmalion-project.html>,”
whose “rise carriesa grim lesson
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/27/opinion/donald-trumps-success-carries-lessons-for-democrats-too.html>for
all.”
All this raises the question: Does the/Times/take the view that
there remains some limit in the larger public interest on the
amounts that should be spent, and the “negativity” of the messages
funded, to keep Trump out of the White House?
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83407&title=%26%238220%3BBig%20Money%20Rearranges%20Its%20Election%20Bets%26%238221%3B%20and%20a%20Bauer%20Retort&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Pre-Election Q&A With Orange County, CA’s Neal Kelley”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83405>
Posted onJune 6, 2016 6:48 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83405>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
A ChapinBlog.
<http://editions.lib.umn.edu/electionacademy/2016/06/06/pre-election-qa-with-orange-county-cas-neal-kelley/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83405&title=%26%238220%3BPre-Election%20Q%26%23038%3BA%20With%20Orange%20County%2C%20CA%E2%80%99s%20Neal%20Kelley%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“Awarding presidential delegates by congressional district is
unfair” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83403>
Posted onJune 6, 2016 6:47 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83403>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Derek Muller SacBee oped.
<http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article81725617.html>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83403&title=%26%238220%3BAwarding%20presidential%20delegates%20by%20congressional%20district%20is%20unfair%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inpolitical parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,primaries
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
#SCOTUS Will Hear Another Racial Gerrymandering Case
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83401>
Posted onJune 6, 2016 6:39 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83401>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Supreme Court this morningnoted probable jurisdiction
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/060616zor_o7kq.pdf>in
the Bethune-Hill case, raising racial gerrymandering claims in state
legislative elections in Va. The SCOTUSBlog page ishere
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/bethune-hill-v-virginia-state-board-of-elections/>.
Just a few weeks ago, the Courtdismissed on standing grounds
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82993>a racial gerrymandering case
involving Va. congressional districts. As I explained a few weeks ago,
by deciding the case on standing grounds, the Court was able to avoid
saying anything new about the racial gerrymandering cause of action it
revived in a surprising way last term in a case from Alabama. (See my
analysis inRacial Gerrymandering’s Questionable Revival,
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2601459>part of an
/Alabama Law Review /symposium <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82979>on
the 50th Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act.)
In the congressional case, the court found a racial gerrymander and it
was objecting congressional candidates who appealed. In the new state
case, the lower court found there was no racial gerrymander. Here are
the questions presented:
(1) Whether the court below erred in holding that race cannot
predominate even where it is the most important consideration in
drawing a given district unless the use of race results in “actual
conflict” with traditional districting criteria; (2) whether the
court below erred by concluding that the admitted use of a
one-size-fits-all 55% black voting age population floor to draw
twelve separate House of Delegates districts did not amount to
racial predominance and trigger strict scrutiny; (3) whether the
court below erred in disregarding the admitted use of race in
drawing district lines in favor of examining circumstantial evidence
regarding the contours of the districts; (4) whether the court below
erred in holding that racial goals must negate all other districting
criteria in order for race to predominate; and (5) whether the court
below erred in concluding that the General Assembly’s predominant
use of race in drawing House District 75 was narrowly tailored to
serve a compelling government interest.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83401&title=%23SCOTUS%20Will%20Hear%20Another%20Racial%20Gerrymandering%20Case&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Hillary Clinton to begin collecting general election cash”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83398>
Posted onJune 3, 2016 6:05 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83398>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politico reports.
<http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-clinton-general-election-funds-223853#ixzz4AVxPChll>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83398&title=%26%238220%3BHillary%20Clinton%20to%20begin%20collecting%20general%20election%20cash%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Former SEC Commissioners Reject Political-Disclosure Rulemaking”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83396>
Posted onJune 3, 2016 4:35 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83396>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Paul Jossey blogs.
<http://thereplawyer.blogspot.com/2016/06/former-sec-commissioners-reject.html>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83396&title=%26%238220%3BFormer%20SEC%20Commissioners%20Reject%20Political-Disclosure%20Rulemaking%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Verbatim fact check: Did California election officials give
independent voters inconsistent and incorrect information about
voting by mail?” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83394>
Posted onJune 3, 2016 4:31 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83394>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ballotpedia:
<https://ballotpedia.org/Verbatim_fact_check:_Did_California_election_officials_give_independent_voters_inconsistent_and_incorrect_information_about_voting_by_mail%3F>
William Simpich, an Oakland attorney and Bernie Sanders supporter,
claims election official have provided “inconsistent” information
and in some instances “bad” instructions to No Party Preference
voters seeking crossover ballots to vote for a presidential
candidate in the upcoming California primary. After examining
published accounts of incorrect information provided to NPP voters
and interviewing an expert on voting in California, we conclude
Simpich is correct.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83394&title=%26%238220%3BVerbatim%20fact%20check%3A%20Did%20California%20election%20officials%20give%20independent%20voters%20inconsistent%20and%20incorrect%20information%20about%20voting%20by%20mail%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“Reid reviews scenarios for filling Senate seat if Warren is VP
pick” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83392>
Posted onJune 3, 2016 2:09 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83392>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Boston Globe
<http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/06/03/harry-reid-studies-legal-scenarios-for-filling-senate-seat-elizabeth-warren-gets-vice-presidential-nod/3FSrNJlAhqRoiWt6iQMK7J/story.html?s_campaign=bostonglobe%3Asocialflow%3Atwitter>:
Reid recently gave voice to those concerns and said he would not
want Clinton to pick a vice presidential nominee from a state with a
Republican governor — such as Massachusetts.
But subsequently Reid commissioned a review by Washington election
law attorney Marc Elias (who is also the general counsel to the
Clinton campaign, and has advised Warren on legal matters in the
past). The review only focused on Massachusetts, and Reid did not
conduct such afollow-up review on any other state, according to the
person source close to Reid.
One key area Reid and his advisers are examining is how long Baker
would have to fill Warren’s seat with a temporary replacement.
In the event of a Senate or House vacancy, Massachusetts currently
requires a special election to be held within 145 to 160 days. In
the interim, the governor has the authority to appoint a successor.
But Reid’s team has identified a portion of the law that allows an
office-holder to start the special election clock by filing a
resignation letter, but also announcing an intention to vacate the
seat at a later date.
In theory, Warren could file such a letter 145 days before the Jan.
20, 2017 inauguration and successfully block Baker from picking any
temporary replacement. But that would expose Warren to a potentially
awkward position. If Clinton lost the November election, and Warren
wanted to keep her Senate seat, she would have to make the
politically difficult decision of rescinding her planned resignation
— or run for an open seat that she created.
A more likely scenario would be that Warren would start the clock
ticking for a special Massachusetts ballot only if Clinton won, with
a intent-to-resign letter dated the day after the Nov. 8 national
election.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83392&title=%26%238220%3BReid%20reviews%20scenarios%20for%20filling%20Senate%20seat%20if%20Warren%20is%20VP%20pick%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
CA “Supreme Court to rule Monday on Governor’s criminal justice
initiative” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83390>
Posted onJune 3, 2016 12:08 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83390>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
David Ettinger:
<http://www.atthelectern.com/supreme-court-to-rule-monday-on-governors-criminal-justice-initiative/>
On Monday morning, the Supreme Courtwill file
<http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/supreme/SF060616.PDF>its opinion
in/Brown v. Superior Court
<http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2134157&doc_no=S232642>/,
which was argued — with justsix days’ notice
<http://www.atthelectern.com/governors-initiative-writ-petition-a-late-addition-to-the-early-may-calendar/>—
on theearly-May calendar
<http://www.atthelectern.com/17-case-early-may-calendar-announced/>.
/Brown/is a high-profile case. Itconcerns
<http://www.atthelectern.com/governor-brown-seeks-urgent-supreme-court-intervention-regarding-ballot-measure/>whether
Governor Jerry Brown’s criminal justice initiative is eligible to
qualify for the November ballot, and was called by theLos Angeles
Times
<http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-court-initiative-argument-20160505-story.html>one
that “carries high stakes for the state’s criminal justice system
and Gov. Jerry Brown’s political legacy.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83390&title=CA%20%26%238220%3BSupreme%20Court%20to%20rule%20Monday%20on%20Governor%E2%80%99s%20criminal%20justice%20initiative%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted indirect democracy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>
“Surge Pricing for American Elections”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83388>
Posted onJune 3, 2016 12:00 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83388>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Free Speech for People
<http://freespeechforpeople.org/surge-pricing-for-american-elections/?platform=hootsuite>:
On the night of June 1^st , Uber disclosed anunprecedented
<http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/01/saudi_arabia_makes_record_3_5_billion_investment_in_uber.html>$3.5
billion investment from the Saudi Arabian government. Aside from its
stock ownership, the repressive kingdom also bought itself a seat on
the company’s board of directors. That’s disturbing formany reasons
<http://www.vox.com/2016/6/2/11841318/uber-saudi-arabia-mistake>,
but what many people don’t realize is that this Saudi investment
gives the kingdom an “Uber loophole” to influence American elections.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83388&title=%26%238220%3BSurge%20Pricing%20for%20American%20Elections%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
Federal Court Rejects Partisan Gerrymander Objection to NC
Congressional Redistricting Plan <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83385>
Posted onJune 3, 2016 11:58 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83385>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
A few months ago, a three judge court held that North Carolina’s
congressional redistricting included an unconstitutional racial
gerrymander. This case is currently on appeal to the Supreme Court. To
remedy the violation, the NC legislature came up with a new plan, that
legislators pretty much admitted was a partisan gerrymander. A group of
objectors then went back to the district court, objecting to the remedy
as a partisan gerrymander.
Inthis short opinion
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/nc-redistricting.pdf>,
the three-judge court unanimously rejected the objection, while leaving
open the possibility of future attacks on the plan. Part of the problem
is that the plaintiffs were vague in their allegations, but more
importantly plaintiffs offered the court no standard to judge whether
the plan was a partisan gerrymander, following Justice Kennedy’s
controlling opinion for the Supreme Court in the Vieth case.
Charlotte Observer
<http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article81508717.html>:
“While we find our hands tied, we note that it may be possible to
challenge redistricting plans when partisan considerations go ‘too
far,’” the judges stated in the ruling. “But it is presently obscure
what ‘too far’ means.”
The challengers, the judges stated, had not provided the court with
a “suitable standard” for deciding that. “Therefore, it does not
seem, at this stage, that the Court can resolve this question based
on the record before it,” the ruling stated. “…The Court reiterates
that the denial of the plaintiffs’ objections does not constitute or
imply an endorsement of or foreclose any additional challenges” to
the redrawn maps.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83385&title=Federal%20Court%20Rejects%20Partisan%20Gerrymander%20Objection%20to%20NC%20Congressional%20Redistricting%20Plan&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
“The case of the mysterious congressional donations”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83383>
Posted onJune 3, 2016 11:15 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83383>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Must-read Javier Panza
<http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-justin-fareed-lawrence-feigen-shlomo-rechnitz-ca24-20160602-snap-story.html>r,
on what could well develop into a criminal investigation.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83383&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20case%20of%20the%20mysterious%20congressional%20donations%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,chicanery
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
“Partisan Balance in Three-Judge District Courts under BCRA”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83380>
Posted onJune 3, 2016 8:30 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83380>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The following is a guest post by Prof.Michael Solimine
<https://www.law.uc.edu/faculty-staff/faculty/michael-e-solimine>, the
country’s leading expert on the use of three-judge courts to decide a
small set of (mostly election) cases, which go on direct appeal to the
Supreme Court:
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) requires that any
constitutional challenge to one of its provisions be decided by a
three-judge district court (3JDC) in the District of Columbia, with
a direct appeal to the Supreme Court subsequently available. By my
count, at least nine such challenges have been filed (The Fall and
Rise of Specialized Federal Constitutional Courts, 17 U. Pa. J.
Const. L. 115, 129 (2014)), with Republican Party of La. v. FEC (No.
15-cv-1241), scheduled for oral argument before the 3JDC on June 24,
being the most recent. Some eyebrows have been raised by the
political backgrounds of the members of the panel: Circuit Judge Sri
Srinivasan, and District Judges Christopher Cooper and Tanya
Chutkan. All are appointees of President Obama, and some might think
it curious or worse that in such a politically-charged case, all
three judges are affiliated by appointment with one political party.
In 1910 Congress first established the 3JDC, with direct appeals to
the Supreme Court, to deal with constitutional challenges to state
regulatory laws. It was thought that three judges rather than just
one would render wiser results in such important and often
controversial cases, that the decision would have greater legitimacy
and acceptance than that of a single judge, and that faster Supreme
Court review was appropriate. Congress eventually downsized the
jurisdiction of these courts, so that now they only hear
reapportionment cases (e.g., Shapiro v. McManus, 136 S. Ct. 450
(2015)), or certain specialized topics such as the now-defunct
preclearance actions under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, or
challenges to BCRA. The latter two are venued exclusively in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, presumably because
the judges of that court have or can develop greater expertise on
such issues.
By statute, the membership of the 3JDC is one district judge, before
whom the action was originally filed, and two other judges, at least
of whom must be a circuit judge, selected by the Chief Judge of the
circuit. Almost always the Chief Judge will select one circuit
judge, and another district judge, to fill out the panel. Over the
history of the 3JDC there has been questions raised about Chief
Judges “packing” panels with appointees of one political party.
While there are some anecdotal accounts of such packing, for the
most part Chief Judges in all circuits seem to have tried,
explicitly or implicitly, to pick judges from different political
backgrounds given the often high profile nature of cases before a
3JDC. Data seems to bear this out: a study (The Three-Judge District
Court in Voting Rights Litigation, 30 U. Mich. J. L. Ref. 79 (1996))
I conducted of reapportionment and related Voting Rights Act cases
from 1976 to 1994 showed that about 30% consisted of judges
appointed by Presidents of the same political party. A later study
(The Influence of Partisanship, Ideology, and the Law on
Redistricting Decisions in the Federal Courts, 65 Pol. Res. Q. 799
(2012)) by Mark McKenzie of these cases from 1981 to 2007 showed
only 15% of such panels.
Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the D.C. Circuit appointed the
remaining two members of the Republican Party of La. panel in
December. Was his choosing two other Obama appointees an anomaly for
BCRA cases? To a degree, yes. Of the eight previous challenges,
starting with McConnell v. FEC, only one had a 3JDC consisting of
judges all affiliated (to the outside world) with the same political
party. That was Rep. Nat’l Comm. v. FEC, 698 F. Supp. 2d 150, aff’d
mem., 561 U.S. 1040 (2010), made up of three Bush II appointees. One
should take such data with a grain of salt, given the small sample
size; the uncertainties of what any given Chief Judge was taking
into account when making appointments; and the fact that at least
district judges in D.C. have a somewhat nonpartisan patina, since
alone among such judges there are no Senatorial prerogatives
Presidents must take into account when appointing them. (In
contrast, for several decades the appointment of DC circuit judges
have been politicized, given the high profile administrative law
docket of that court, coupled with the court being a breeding ground
for Supreme Court appointees.)
One might further wonder what difference the partisan makeup at the
trial level makes, given that the 3JDC decision in a BCRA case will
inevitably be appealed to the Supreme Court. It might be important
for several reasons. The 3JDC engages in fact-finding, which some
Justices might be willing to defer, and the trial court’s decision
and reasoning (as in any other case) will shape the party’s
arguments and the posture of the litigation before the Supreme
Court. And until a ninth Justice is appointed, there is the specter
of 4-4 splits, which would leave the decision of a 3JDC intact. I
don’t think, and don’t believe the evidence shows, that the partisan
backgrounds of lower court judges in BCRA cases is strictly
determinative of their decisions. But the legitimacy functions of
the 3JDC can be best served if Chief Judges take into account those
backgrounds in making appointments.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83380&title=%26%238220%3BPartisan%20Balance%20in%20Three-Judge%20District%20Courts%20under%20BCRA%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“California’s Election Calamity” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83377>
Posted onJune 3, 2016 7:48 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83377>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Jonathan Bernstein
<http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-03/california-s-top-two-election-calamity>:
California voters are set to vote in their primary on Tuesday, and
will suffer the consequences of a serious self-imposed mistake in
how they run their state. No, it has nothing to do with the
presidential race. The disaster is its “top two” system, in which
the candidates for state offices — regardless of party — go on to
compete in the general election in November if they finish first and
second in the primaries.
The likely perverse result? Voters in November will probably have a
choice between two Democrats for an open U.S. Senate seat.
The motivation for the California system was to elevate more
moderate politicians than the parties were producing on their own.
In practice, at least in the first two election cycles since the
change was carried out, the results have not matched reformers’
hopes. Candidates havenot been more moderate
<http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/chuck-schumer-is-wrong-about-the-top-two-primary/>.
In part, that’s because the parties have adapted: They made more
formal endorsements
<http://www.mischiefsoffaction.com/2013/04/do-endorsements-actually-work.html> before
the June first-round election. This is consistent with a theme that
political scientist Seth Masket has emphasized in his
research:Political parties are resilient
<http://www.amazon.com/Inevitable-Party-Attempts-System-Democracy/dp/0190220848/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1464879792&sr=1-1>,
and react to regulation by finding new ways to control their nomination.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83377&title=%26%238220%3BCalifornia%26%238217%3Bs%20Election%20Calamity%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inpolitical parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,primaries
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
“Trump Could Threaten U.S. Rule of Law, Scholars Say”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83375>
Posted onJune 3, 2016 7:25 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83375>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Important Adam Liptak analysis.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/politics/donald-trump-constitution-power.html> (Sure
beats coveringthe history of food
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/02/us/politics/for-a-collegial-court-justices-lunch-together-and-forbid-talk-of-cases.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Fadam-liptak&action=click&contentCollection=undefined®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection>at
SCOTUS.)
In the article Adam performs the rare Double Ilya.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83375&title=%26%238220%3BTrump%20Could%20Threaten%20U.S.%20Rule%20of%20Law%2C%20Scholars%20Say%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaigns <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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160606/6bcd2aae/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/20160606/6bcd2aae/attachment.png>
View list directory