[EL] ELB News and Commentary 6/15/16

Wed Jun 15 07:14:02 PDT 2016

“Kansas Moves to Register Those Without Citizenship Proof”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83594>
Posted on June 15, 2016 7:01 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83594> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

AP:<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/kansas-moves-register-citizenship-proof-39861185>

Kansas<http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/kansas.htm> must begin registering thousands of eligible voters for federal elections who have not provided proof of citizenship under a federal court order that has complicated the state’s elections less than a month before early voting begins for its primary.

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach’s office issued instructions to county election officials late Tuesday to register those motor voter applicants without citizenship documentation to vote — but only in the federal races for President and U.S. Senate and U.S. House. Those guidelines come in the wake of a 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision last week that refused to temporarily block a federal judge’s order.

Early voting begins July 13 for the state’s primary election in August.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83594&title=%26%238220%3BKansas%20Moves%20to%20Register%20Those%20Without%20Citizenship%20Proof%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

“Outside spending breaks $400 million mark, far outpacing 2012”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83592>
Posted on June 15, 2016 6:59 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83592> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

From the indispensable Open Secrets:<http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/06/outside-spending-breaks-400-million-mark-far-outpacing-2012/>

Outside groups have now <http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/> spent more <http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/>  than $400 million<http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/> to influence elections this cycle, data collected from the Federal Election Commission show, a figure that dwarfs the amount spent by this point in the 2012 election.

These outside groups include not only super PACs and 527 organizations, which must disclose their donors, but also 501(c) nonprofit groups, which aren’t required to do so. Together, they’ve spent about $403 million<http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/cycle_tots.php?cycle=2016&view=Y&chart=N#summ> — a 175 percent increase over the almost $146 million<http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/cycle_tots.php?cycle=2016&view=Y&chart=N#summ> such groups had spent by this time in June 2012.

Not surprisingly, super PACs have driven the spending. With about $341 million in independent expenditures so far<http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?chrt=V&type=S>, they account for about 84 percent of all outside spending — roughly the same share as at this point in the last presidential cycle. Then, super PAC spending made up 81 percent of all political expenditures by outside groups.

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83592&title=%26%238220%3BOutside%20spending%20breaks%20%24400%20million%20mark%2C%20far%20outpacing%202012%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, tax law and election law<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>

“House approves Koch-backed bill to shield donors’ names”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83590>
Posted on June 15, 2016 6:57 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83590> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Fredreka Schouten<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/06/14/house-approves-koch-backed-bill-shield-donors-names/85886164/> for USA Today:

The House approved a bill Tuesday that would bar the IRS from collecting the names of donors to tax-exempt groups, prompting warnings from campaign-finance watchdogs that it could lead to foreign interests illegally infiltrating American elections.

The measure, which has the support of House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., also pits the Obama administration against one of the most powerful figures in Republican politics, billionaire industrialist Charles Koch. Koch’s donor network channels hundreds of millions of dollars each year into groups that largely use anonymous donations to shape policies on everything from health care to tax subsidies. Its leaders have urged the Republican-controlled Congress to clamp down on the IRS, citing free-speech concerns.

The names of donors to politically active non-profit groups aren’t public information now, but the organizations still have to disclose donor information to the IRS on annual tax returns. The bill, written by Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., would prohibit the tax agency from collecting names, addresses or any “identifying information” about donors.

Proponents say the bill is needed to stop the government and others from harassing politically active donors.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83590&title=%26%238220%3BHouse%20approves%20Koch-backed%20bill%20to%20shield%20donors%E2%80%99%20names%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law and election law<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>

“Convicted Ponzi schemer: I’ll conduct $50 million marketing campaign for Trump”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83588>
Posted on June 15, 2016 6:55 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83588> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Politico reports.<http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/convicted-ponzi-schemer-ill-conduct-50-million-marketing-campaign-for-trump-224350>

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83588&title=%26%238220%3BConvicted%20Ponzi%20schemer%3A%20I%26%238217%3Bll%20conduct%20%2450%20million%20marketing%20campaign%20for%20Trump%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>

Teaching, or Taking, An Election Law, Legislation, or Statutory Interpretation Course in the Fall?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83584>
Posted on June 15, 2016 6:53 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83584> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Then please consider my student treatise/study aid with questions and answers covering all these topics. It works with all the major casebooks in these courses (see the correlation table below):
Legislation, Statutory Interpretation, and Election Law: Examples & Explanations<http://www.aspenlaw.com/examples-explanations/id-9781454845416/Examples__Explanations_Legislation_Statutory_Interpretation_and_Election_Law> (Aspen Publishers, 2014)
[http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/EE-LSIE.jpg]

Order from Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Examples-Explanations-Legislation-Statutory-Interpretation/dp/1454845414/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1401919780&sr=8-1&keywords=hasen+legislation>
Correlation Table<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/EE-LSIE-Correlation-Table.pdf>
Table of Contents<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/EE-LSIE-TOC.pdf>
Index<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/EE-LSIE-Index.pdf>

Thanks!
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83584&title=Teaching%2C%20or%20Taking%2C%20An%20Election%20Law%2C%20Legislation%2C%20or%20Statutory%20Interpretation%20Course%20in%20the%20Fall%3F&description=>
Posted in pedagogy<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=23>

“Radiolab Presents: More Perfect – The Political Thicket”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83582>
Posted on June 15, 2016 6:47 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83582> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Oooh, this looks good!<http://www.radiolab.org/story/the_political_thicket/>

his story comes from Radiolab’s first ever spin-off podcast, More Perfect. To hear more, subscribe here<http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolabmoreperfect/episodes/>.

When Chief Justice Earl Warren was asked at the end of his career, “What was the most important case of your tenure?”, there were a lot of answers he could have given. After all, he had presided over some of the most important decisions in the court’s history — cases that dealt with segregation in schools, the right to an attorney, the right to remain silent, just to name a few. But his answer was a surprise: He said, “Baker v. Carr,” a 1962 redistricting case.

On this episode of More Perfect, we talk about why this case was so important; important enough, in fact, that it pushed one Supreme Court justice to a nervous breakdown, brought a boiling feud to a head, put one justice in the hospital, and changed the course of the Supreme Court — and the nation — forever.

GUESTS:

Louis Michael Seidman<http://www.radiolab.org/people/louis-seidman/>, Guy-Uriel Charles<http://www.radiolab.org/people/guy-uriel-charles/>, Tara Grove<http://www.radiolab.org/people/tara-grove/>, Samuel Issacharoff<http://www.radiolab.org/people/samuel-issacharoff/>, Alan Kohn<http://www.radiolab.org/people/alan-kohn/> and J. Douglas Smith<http://www.radiolab.org/people/j-douglas-smith/>

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83582&title=%26%238220%3BRadiolab%20Presents%3A%20More%20Perfect%20%26%238211%3B%20The%20Political%20Thicket%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“Corporate Citizen? An Argument for the Separation of Corporation and State”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83580>
Posted on June 14, 2016 5:01 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83580> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy<http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/corporate-citizen-an-argument-for-the-separation-of-corporation-and-state> at the ACS Blog:

Corporations are strange bedfellows to have in a democracy. My new book, Corporate Citizen?<https://www.amazon.com/Corporate-Citizen-Argument-Separation-Corporation/dp/1632847264?ie=UTF8&keywords=corporate%20citizen%3F&pi=CB192198896_AA75_QL70&qid=1464794259&ref_=mp_s_a_1_12&ref_=redir_mobile_desktop&sr=8-12>, explores how, over the course of American history, corporations have aggressively sought to expand their constitutional rights.  And, American courts, especially the U.S. Supreme Court, have often obliged – enabling the slow, yet steady, expansion of corporate rights since near the founding of the nation. But the current Roberts Supreme Court has taken this enabler role to new heights and earned the nickname the “Corporate Court<http://www.thenation.com/article/citizens-united-and-%20corporate-court>” because of its solicitude towards corporate litigants.

My basic thesis in Corporate Citizen? is that corporations have gained more rights that previously, and appropriately, only applied to human beings, like religious and political speech rights<https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205>. This could have been palatable if human style responsibilities were also being given to corporations. Instead corporations get to have their cake and eat it too. They are spared concomitant responsibilities, as they are given a First Amendment veto<https://www.dcbar.org/bar-resources/publications/washington-lawyer/articles/september-2015-commercial-speech.cfm> to shoot down reasonable regulations of their economic activity.

By contrast, when we conceptualize real (human) citizenship, typically there are a cluster of rights and responsibilities that are mixed together. We pay taxes, and we get a Congress to represent us. We serve on juries, and we get a fair trial. We sign up for the selective service (if we are men), and we get the protection of the military. If we are victims of a crime, we can seek justice. If we are guilty of committing a crime, we can expect to be held accountable under the rule of law.

But with corporations, which are at their essence just a pile of papers, U.S. courts have granted them more and more rights, and then simultaneously, absolved many firms from responsibilities. The book examines the lack of accountability in areas includingenvironmental stewardship<http://environmentalintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/FRACKINGS-TOXIC-LOOPHOLE.pdf>, paying taxes<http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/USP%20ShellGames%20Oct15%201.3.pdf> and respecting human rights<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/nestle-u-s-a-inc-v-doe/>.

Interestingly, these developments around expanded corporate power have not gone unnoticed and have been met with resistance from many sectors including from investors, customers and lawmakers. The final section of the book addresses these responses, and offers a potential path forward. Institutional investors, in particular, have been on the forefront of asking for corporations to be more transparent<http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherskroupa/2012/04/20/investors-want-disclosure-of-corporate-political-contributionsand-lobbying-expenditures-2/> about using their new Citizens United rights to spend money in politics.

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83580&title=%26%238220%3BCorporate%20Citizen%3F%20An%20Argument%20for%20the%20Separation%20of%20Corporation%20and%20State%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

“Kris Kobach won’t say if he’s complying with order to register voters”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83578>
Posted on June 14, 2016 4:19 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83578> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Zack Roth<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/kris-kobach-wont-say-if-hes-complying-order-register-voters> for MSNBC:

A federal court gave Kansas until Tuesday to start registering thousands of would-be voters tripped up by the state’s strict proof of citizenship law. But Secretary of State Kris Kobach isn’t saying whether he’s complying with the order.

It’s been radio silence from Kobach since Friday night, when the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the order issued last month by U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson. A Kobach spokeswoman didn’t respond to multiple phone and email messages asking whether Kobach intends to begin registering voters. Messages sent on Twitter to Kobach and to the official account for the secretary of state’s office also went unanswered.

“Secretary Kobach has repeatedly stood in the way of thousands of Kansans who have tried to exercise their right to vote,” Dale Ho, the director of the ACLU’s voting rights project, said in a statement Tuesday.“ Today that ends. He must let them vote.”
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83578&title=%26%238220%3BKris%20Kobach%20won%E2%80%99t%20say%20if%20he%E2%80%99s%20complying%20with%20order%20to%20register%20voters%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

“2016 Delegates and Conventions Explained”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83576>
Posted on June 14, 2016 11:26 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83576> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Ballotpedia webinar<https://zoom.us/webinar/register/e4a68c3e5693b0f9d746f627e8486654> June 16.

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83576&title=%26%238220%3B2016%20Delegates%20and%20Conventions%20Explained%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in political parties<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, primaries<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>

“The Trump Ticket; A new poll that assesses Trump’s potential vice presidential picks demonstrates the benefits of preferential voting”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83574>
Posted on June 14, 2016 11:24 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83574> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Peter Roff <http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-14/poll-on-trumps-vice-presidential-pick-shows-merits-of-preferential-voting?src=usn_fb> for US News.

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83574&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20Trump%20Ticket%3B%20%20A%20new%20poll%20that%20assesses%20Trump%26%238217%3Bs%20potential%20vice%20presidential%20picks%20demonstrates%20the%20benefits%20of%20preferential%20voti>
Posted in alternative voting systems<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

“Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83572>
Posted on June 14, 2016 8:43 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=83572> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo<https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html>:

Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security experts who responded to the breach.

The intruders so thoroughly compromised the DNC’s system they also were able to read all e-mail and chat traffic, said DNC officials and the security experts.

The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political organizations. The networks of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted by Russian spies, as were the computers of some GOP political action committees, U.S. officials said. But details on those cases were not available.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D83572&title=%26%238220%3BRussian%20government%20hackers%20penetrated%20DNC%2C%20stole%20opposition%20research%20on%20Trump%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>

--
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<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org<http://electionlawblog.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160615/73f7a0e6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160615/73f7a0e6/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 16608 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160615/73f7a0e6/attachment-0001.png>