[EL] ELB News and Commentary 3/1/16
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Tue Mar 1 04:40:03 PST 2016
Freeing Republican Delegates at Convention to Kill Trump Nomination?
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80432>
Posted onMarch 1, 2016 4:36 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80432>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Trip Gabriel’s NYT story
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/us/politics/donald-trump-delegates.html?ref=politics>yesterday
concludes as follows:
“I think the establishment will do anything in their power to try to
stop Donald Trump at the national convention,” said John Patrick
Yob, the former delegate strategist for Senator Rand Paul of
Kentucky, whodropped out of the race
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/04/us/politics/rand-paul-and-rick-santorum-pull-out-of-gop-nomination-race.html>on
Feb. 3.
That could include changing rules that bind delegates to candidates,
said Mr. Yob, One of the first orders of business at the national
convention in Cleveland in July will be a meeting by the rules
committee to determine guidelines for the proceedings.
Delegates may not personally support the candidates they are bound
to represent, based on their state’s primary or caucus results. If
they are “unbound” by a rule change, or after a first ballot in
which no candidate wins a majority, the nominating fight could crack
wide open on the convention floor.
Water Shapiro
<http://blogs.rollcall.com/opinion-analysis/the-years-most-important-non-endorsement/?dcz=>in
Roll Call:
But the stakes in Cleveland in July would be infinitely greater —
with the threat of the first takeover of a modern political party
byan authoritarian
<http://blogs.rollcall.com/opinion-analysis/319/?dcz=>who traffics
in racism and exudes contempt for the First Amendment. Under these
circumstances, there would be nothing anti-democratic about GOP
leaders using every mechanism in their power to stop Trump. Gaming
the rules, after all, is what Ronald Reagan tried against Jerry Ford
in 1976.
It is worth remembering that — even with a delegate lead or a
majority — Trump would face built-in disadvantages in Cleveland.
Paul Ryan would be the convention chair and other GOP insiders would
probably control relevant committees like convention rules and party
platform. In some states, Trump does not get to pick his delegates
slates, but instead is saddled with party stalwarts of dubious loyalty.
Would Republicans do this to block Trump, especially if it means going
against the majority of party voters? On the one hand, if the
calculation is that Trump would lose no matter what, then this might be
a way to save the Republican brand even if Trump at that point tried to
mount an independent campaign (and it is not clear based on timing that
he’d be able to pull that off from the convention forward). On the other
hand, what wrath would Republican leaders face from the rank-and-file,
and from the Tea Party folks, if they deprived folks of the nomination?
What would the repercussions be for the party leadership? It looks
quite risky.
My gut tells me that if Trump actually gets a majority of the delegates,
Republicans would not kill his nomination at the convention but instead
individual Republicans would distance themselves from Trump. They’d drop
him like a “hot rock
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-party.html?_r=0>”
if necessary, as Sen. McConnell put it.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80432&title=Freeing%20Republican%20Delegates%20at%20Convention%20to%20Kill%20Trump%20Nomination%3F&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,political
parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,primaries
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
“Big-Donor Money Has Not Worked in the 2016 Campaign. Yet.”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80429>
Posted onMarch 1, 2016 4:26 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80429>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT editorial.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/opinion/big-donor-money-has-not-worked-in-the-2016-campaign-yet.html?_r=0>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80429&title=%26%238220%3BBig-Donor%20Money%20Has%20Not%20Worked%20in%20the%202016%20Campaign.%20Yet.%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
Plaintiffs In NC Redistricting Case Make Forceful Argument State’s
Remedial Plan is Unconstitutional Partisan Gerrymander
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80425>
Posted onMarch 1, 2016 4:15 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80425>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
While much of the brief is about how the NC legislature’s new plan is no
cure for the earlier redistricting plan found to be a racial
gerrymander, perhaps what is most interesting is the discussion of how
open and blatant the NC legislators were about drawing line to partisan
advantage.
From the brief
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/McCrory-plaintiffs.pdf>:
Lest there be any doubt as to whether this is a partisan
gerrymander, one need only ask Lewis: “I acknowledge freely that
this would be a political gerrymander.” Hamilton Decl., Ex. 3 (Tr.
46:5-11);/see also id./(Tr. 51:12-52:1) (“[W]e want to make clear
that we . . . are going to use political data in drawing this map.
It is to gain partisan advantage on the map. I want that criteria to
be clearly stated and understood.. . . . I’m making clear that our
intent is to use — is to use the political data we have to our
partisan advantage.”)….
The General Assembly’s purported criteria only confirm Lewis’s
stated intent to maximize partisan advantage. In a criterion titled
simply “Partisan Advantage,” the General Assembly provides:
The partisan makeup of the congressional delegation under
the enacted plan is 10 Republicans and 3 Democrats. The Committee
shall make reasonable efforts to construct districts in the . . .
Plan to maintain the current partisan makeup of North Carolina’s
congressional delegation.
This, in a state that is split roughly evenly between Democrats and
Republicans.
Should be interesting.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80425&title=Plaintiffs%20In%20NC%20Redistricting%20Case%20Make%20Forceful%20Argument%20State%26%238217%3Bs%20Remedial%20Plan%20is%20Unconstitutional%20Partisan%20Gerrymander&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
3rd Circuit Seems Skeptical of Menendez Speech or Debate Clause
Attack on His Indictment <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80423>
Posted onMarch 1, 2016 3:11 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80423>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP reports.
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MENENDEZ_PROBE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80423&title=3rd%20Circuit%20Seems%20Skeptical%20of%20Menendez%20Speech%20or%20Debate%20Clause%20Attack%20on%20His%20Indictment&description=>
Posted inchicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>,legislation and
legislatures <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>,Speech or Debate
Clause <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=36>
“Does The Constitution Protect Your Right To Vote? It May Depend On
Your Address.” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80421>
Posted onMarch 1, 2016 3:07 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80421>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ian Millhiser
<http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/29/3754623/does-the-constitution-protect-your-right-to-vote-it-may-depend-on-your-address/>:
This election, however, there will not be a conservative majority on
the Supreme Court. Indeed, unless President Obama finds a way to
break through Senate Republican’splanned blockade of his Supreme
Court nominee
<http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/26/3754063/the-single-most-revealing-sentence-obama-has-said-about-his-supreme-court-nominee/>,
it’s unlikely that the Court will have any majority at all in many
politically charged cases.
As election law expert Rick Hasen notes, there is alreadyone early
sign <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=80165>that Scalia’s death has
moved the Court’s center of gravity in voting rights cases. After a
lower federal court held that two of North Carolina’s congressional
districts areunconstitutional racial gerrymanders
<http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/08/3746987/federal-court-says-north-carolinas-gerrymandered-maps-are-unconstitutional/>,
many experts (including Hasen <https://t.co/DpqyCgnQAO>) expected
the Supreme Court to stay this decision. Itdidn’t
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80149>.
Because the Court denied such a stay without explanation, it is
impossible to know what the vote was among the justices or why the
stay was not granted. Nevertheless, as Hasen explains, the Court’s
decision in this North Carolina case may be a sign that the justices
willno longer keep such a tight leash
<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=80165>on lower court judges who
decide voting rights cases close to elections.
As the election approaches, there will no doubt be several rounds of
last minute voting rights litigation, just as there was in the 2014
cycle. Should the Court split 4-4 in any of these voting rights
cases, the ordinary rule is that the lower court’s decision
continues to control the case. That means that the scope of an
individual’s voting rights may turn on whether the federal appeals
court that oversees their state has a liberal or conservative majority.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80421&title=%26%238220%3BDoes%20The%20Constitution%20Protect%20Your%20Right%20To%20Vote%3F%20It%20May%20Depend%20On%20Your%20Address.%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Corporate America’s Wasted Investment in Jeb Bush”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80419>
Posted onMarch 1, 2016 3:05 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80419>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy blogs.
<http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/corporate-americas-wasted-investment-jeb-bush>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80419&title=%26%238220%3BCorporate%20America%E2%80%99s%20Wasted%20Investment%20in%20Jeb%20Bush%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
Kobach’s Office Will Depose EAC Commissioner in EAC Citizenship Case
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80417>
Posted onMarch 1, 2016 3:03 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80417>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
*MINUTE ORDER: On February 29, 2016, the Court held a conference
call to hear any requests for expedited discovery in the
above-captioned case. Upon due consideration of the parties’ oral
arguments it is hereby ORDERED that defendant-intervenor the Kansas
Secretary of State’s request to depose Commissioner Christy
McCormick is GRANTED. Her deposition, however, must be taken on or
before March 2, 2016 in Washington, D.C. It is further ORDERED that
each side shall have up to two hours to examine the deponent. Signed
by Judge Richard J. Leon on 2/29/2016. (lcrjl2, )*
(via Josh Gerstein)
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80417&title=Kobach%26%238217%3Bs%20Office%20Will%20Depose%20EAC%20Commissioner%20in%20EAC%20Citizenship%20Case&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Leslie Moonves on Donald Trump: ‘It May Not Be Good for America,
but It’s Good for CBS'” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80415>
Posted onFebruary 29, 2016 1:20 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80415>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Hollywood Reporter
<http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/leslie-moonves-donald-trump-may-871464>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80415&title=%26%238220%3BLeslie%20Moonves%20on%20Donald%20Trump%3A%20%26%238216%3BIt%20May%20Not%20Be%20Good%20for%20America%2C%20but%20It%26%238217%3Bs%20Good%20for%20CBS%27%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
Quote of the Day <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80413>
Posted onFebruary 29, 2016 12:31 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80413>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
“This whole thing is a really messy mixture of unintended
consequences….The R.N.C. put in a system that was designed to let either
an establishment figure or a very popular conservative grass-roots
figure wrap up the nomination early. And Donald Trump rewrote the rules.”
—Ben Ginsberg
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/us/politics/donald-trump-delegates.html?ref=politics>on
the Republican presidential nomination process
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80413&title=Quote%20of%20the%20Day&description=>
Posted inpolitical parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,primaries
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
Kobach ❤︎ Trump <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80411>
Posted onFebruary 29, 2016 11:19 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80411>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Are you surprised
<https://twitter.com/BryanLowry3/status/704381877046497280>that one
anti-immigrant charlatan loves another?
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80411&title=Kobach%20%E2%9D%A4%EF%B8%8E%20Trump&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
A Scenario in Which McConnell’s Senate Approves Obama’s Choice for
#SCOTUS <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80408>
Posted onFebruary 29, 2016 11:07 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80408>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I’ve already written
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/debate-scotus-nomination-obama>about
how I think whether a SCOTUS Obama nominee gets a hearing and possible
vote depends upon whether the controversy looks like it is causing
trouble for Republican Senators in blue/purple states up for reelection.
If they face pressure, and McConnell can lose the Senate, I think
Republicans will relent.
But here’s a more extreme version of this scenario. Suppose Obama
nominates a very strong candidate who is a moderate, like a Sri
Srinivasan. Trump is the Republican nominee and Hillary Clinton the
Democratic nominee. Trump looks like he’s going to lose (or perhaps he
already loses). Clinton signals she will nominate a liberal Scalia or
second Brennan (think Pam Karlan) after inauguration. The Senate might
even flip (or be about to flip after a lame duck) to Democrats, who can
kill the filibuster.
In that scenario, it is completely in McConnell’s interest to allow a
vote (and perhaps even vote for) the Obama nominee. The alternative
would be worse.
(Now if it is Clinton but it looks like it will still be a Republican
Senate, the incentives and play are a bit harder to imagine).
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80408&title=A%20Scenario%20in%20Which%20McConnell%26%238217%3Bs%20Senate%20Approves%20Obama%26%238217%3Bs%20Choice%20for%20%23SCOTUS&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
--
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/20160301/f918785e/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/20160301/f918785e/attachment.png>
View list directory