[EL] ELB News and Commentary 3/2/16

Rick Hasen rhasen at law.uci.edu
Wed Mar 2 08:22:13 PST 2016


    “Why Is Anyone Still Doing Caucuses?”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80458>

Posted onMarch 2, 2016 8:16 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80458>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Evan McMorris-Santoro 
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/why-is-anyone-still-doing-caucuses#.sm84zLnZQ>for 
BuzzFeed:

    About a half hour from the Las Vegas Strip, in a large public high
    school on the day the state’s Democratic nominating contest, a man
    stepped up onto the gym bleachers and shouted:

    “Let’s make sure we never caucus again!”

    “And then,” said Sondra Cosgrove, president of the League of Women
    Voters of Las Vegas Valley, “the whole room erupted, chanting, ‘No
    more caucus! no more caucus!’”

    The man, and Cosgrove, were among the 80,000 or so who sucked it up
    and made their voice heard during a chaotic Saturday in Nevada last
    month. Their particular caucus site — El Dorado High School — had
    all the hallmarks of the process: confusing rules, long lines that
    seemed to go nowhere, volunteers unprepared to deal with the crush
    of people who showed up.

    Cosgrove came to caucus for Clinton, and while she wasn’t sure who
    the man on the bleachers supported, they were all united in one
    shared cause that afternoon. “Everybody was angry,” she said.

    Few things in modern electoral politics go as predictably, publicly
    badly as a high-profile caucuses in America. For people like
    Cosgrove — interested in fair, well-attended, and fraud-free
    elections — the caucus system just doesn’t cut it.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80458&title=%26%238220%3BWhy%20Is%20Anyone%20Still%20Doing%20Caucuses%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inpolitical parties 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,primaries 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>


    “Voter ID laws again are gaining traction in the Missouri
    legislature” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80456>

Posted onMarch 2, 2016 8:13 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80456>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The Kansas City Star reports. 
<http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article63307132.html>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80456&title=%26%238220%3BVoter%20ID%20laws%20again%20are%20gaining%20traction%20in%20the%20Missouri%20legislature%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>


    “Did Bill Clinton violate election rules by going into a polling
    location?” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80454>

Posted onMarch 2, 2016 8:11 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80454>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Boston.com 
<http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2016/03/01/did-bill-clinton-violate-election-rules-venturing-into-polling-location/PH4FIH9jCKYKf6Fzyvfz2N/story.html?s_campaign=8315>:

    Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been “reminded” not to solicit votes
    near polling sites after President Bill Clinton ventured into a
    polling location in Boston on Tuesday, the Secretary of the
    Commonwealth’s office said.

    Massachusettselection rules
    <http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/lawlib/900-999cmr/950cmr53.pdf>forbid
    the solicitation of a vote for or against a candidate, party, or
    position within 150 feet of a polling place.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80454&title=%26%238220%3BDid%20Bill%20Clinton%20violate%20election%20rules%20by%20going%20into%20a%20polling%20location%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


    “Kansas’s restrictive voter-ID law keeps citizens from exercising a
    fundamental right” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80452>

Posted onMarch 2, 2016 8:01 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80452>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo editorial. 
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kansass-restrictive-voter-id-law-keeps-citizens-from-exercising-a-fundamental-right/2016/03/01/b48f09de-d747-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html?postshare=1031456934057548&tid=ss_tw>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80452&title=%26%238220%3BKansas%E2%80%99s%20restrictive%20voter-ID%20law%20keeps%20citizens%20from%20exercising%20a%20fundamental%20right%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,Election Assistance Commission 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=34>,The Voting Wars 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


    Ron Collins Interviews Me on Money in Politics, #SCOTUS, and the
    First Amendment <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80450>

Posted onMarch 2, 2016 7:54 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80450>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

These 
<http://concurringopinions.com/archives/2016/03/fac-6-first-amendment-conversations-the-law-politics-of-money-a-q-a-with-richard-hasen-part-i.html>were 
some of the best (and toughest) interview questions I’ve received. A 
very good exchange I think.  Part II appears tomorrow.

While part of the interview talks about my bookPlutocrats United 
<http://www.amazon.com/Plutocrats-United-Campaign-Distortion-Elections/dp/0300212453/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1456075848&sr=1-1&keywords=Richard+hasen>, 
we also discussed the Scalia vacancy and much more.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80450&title=Ron%20Collins%20Interviews%20Me%20on%20Money%20in%20Politics%2C%20%23SCOTUS%2C%20and%20the%20First%20Amendment&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme 
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “I’m responsible for Citizens United. I’m not sorry.”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80448>

Posted onMarch 2, 2016 7:51 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80448>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

David Bossie LA Times oped. 
<http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0301-bossie-citizens-united-20160226-story.html>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80448&title=%26%238220%3BI%26%238217%3Bm%20responsible%20for%20Citizens%20United.%20I%26%238217%3Bm%20not%20sorry.%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


    DC Circuit Court, on 2-1 Vote, Sets Challenge to McCain-Feingold
    Disclosure Law for 3-Judge Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80446>

Posted onMarch 2, 2016 7:49 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80446>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

You can read the opinionhere 
<https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/7C57A552BAE152B385257F690056387F/$file/14-5249-1601523.pdf>.

I don’t expect the claim will fare well on the merits before the 
district court, for reasons given in the dissenting opinion.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80446&title=DC%20Circuit%20Court%2C%20on%202-1%20Vote%2C%20Sets%20Challenge%20to%20McCain-Feingold%20Disclosure%20Law%20for%203-Judge%20Court&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


    “Thank God for Citizens United” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80444>

Posted onMarch 2, 2016 7:44 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80444>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Donald Trump candidacy as“The Producers” fantasy 
<http://forward.com/the-assimilator/334485/its-springtime-for-donald-trump-in-producers-spoof/?utm_content=daily_Newsletter_FeaturedBlogspot_Image_Position-1&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Daily%202016-03-01&utm_term=The%20Forward%20Today%20Monday-Friday>. 
(Watch Nathan Lane at 2:30 mention Citizens United).

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80444&title=%26%238220%3BThank%20God%20for%20Citizens%20United%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme 
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “Years After Voter ID Law, Alternative IDs Confuse Texas County
    Officials” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80442>

Posted onMarch 2, 2016 7:23 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80442>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Texas Observer 
<http://www.texasobserver.org/election-identification-certificates-voter-id/>:

    More than four years have passed since the Republican-controlled
    Texas Legislature passed a controversial voter ID law, one of the
    strictest in the nation. At the time, civil rights groups and
    Democrats pointed out that hundreds of thousands of Texans lacked a
    driver license or other government-sanctioned forms of photo ID, and
    that cost and access could be a barrier to acquiring them. In one of
    the few concessions to opponents, Republicans agreed to create a new
    form of ID, the election identification certificate (EIC). The EIC
    is free to any qualifying voter as long as you can produce some
    combination of an array of underlying documentation, such as a birth
    certificate, Social Security card and proof of residence.

    But years into the voter ID experiment, the EIC has been all but
    forgotten — by voters and by elections administrators alike.

    In the three years since Texasbegan issuing EICs
    <http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_staff/media_and_communications/2013/pr062513a.htm>,
    the Department of Public Safety (DPS) has issued only 653 EICs
    across the state — only one ID for every 930 Texans who lack voter ID.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80442&title=%26%238220%3BYears%20After%20Voter%20ID%20Law%2C%20Alternative%20IDs%20Confuse%20Texas%20County%20Officials%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


    More Ben Ginsberg on What’s Ahead with Delegates
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80440>

Posted onMarch 2, 2016 7:08 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80440>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Via Playbook 
<http://www.politico.com/playbook/2016/03/trump-tuesday-frantic-and-likely-fruitless-quest-to-deny-nomination-balz-nightmarish-for-gop-rubio-disappointed-cruz-emboldened-clinton-7-states-sanders-4-trump-7-states-cruz-3-rubio-1-212976>:

    *BEN GINSBERG of Jones Day,*the nation’s leading GOP elections
    lawyer, on MSNBC’s set at 30 Rock, said March 15 (including Florida
    and Ohio, both winner take all) “is kind of the cut-off day” for
    Cruz or Rubio to block Trump. Ben agreed with Chuck Todd that this
    is “a two-week sprint” not to BEAT Trump, but to DEPRIVE HIM of
    delegates. Ben then gave a clinic on what co-anchor Rachel Maddow
    called “the dark art” of contesting a convention.

    *GINSBERG:*“If you were to devise a plan to stop a runaway nominee,
    you would have to do a lot of state-by-state organizing.” Most
    delegates aren’t bound past the first ballot, or on rules questions
    or credentials challenges. Ginsberg, who played a central role in
    the Florida recount of 2000, admitted this is “the equivalent of a
    triple bank shot: [I]t has not happened in history, but neither had
    a presidential recount.” Nicolle Wallace, who was on-set, laughed
    appreciatively.

    *In response to the anchors’ point*that this plan would be seen as
    “disenfranchising a movement,” Ginsberg said Trump “is the guy in
    the driver’s seat,” but that if he were to go to the convention
    lacking a majority of delegates, “that is a historically weak
    frontrunner”: “There are rules of the convention that apply, and
    people will take advantage of those rules.”

I should point out that Ben Ginsberg’s Jones Day partner,Don McGahn 
<http://www.jonesday.com/dmcgahn/>, isrepresenting Trump 
<http://www.p2016.org/trump/trumporg.html>.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80440&title=More%20Ben%20Ginsberg%20on%20What%26%238217%3Bs%20Ahead%20with%20Delegates&description=>
Posted inpolitical parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>


    “How New Hampshire Used the Wrong Math and Gave One of Rubio’s
    Delegates to Trump” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80438>

Posted onMarch 1, 2016 8:52 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80438>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT’s The Uphsot. 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/upshot/how-new-hampshire-used-the-wrong-math-and-gave-one-of-rubios-delegates-to-trump.html>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80438&title=%26%238220%3BHow%20New%20Hampshire%20Used%20the%20Wrong%20Math%20and%20Gave%20One%20of%20Rubio%E2%80%99s%20Delegates%20to%20Trump%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,primaries 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>


    “Reform Groups Urge Senators to Support Federal Election
    Administration Act to Replace the FEC”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80436>

Posted onMarch 1, 2016 8:36 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80436>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Release 
<http://www.democracy21.org/legislative-action/press-releases-legislative-action/reform-groups-urge-senators-to-support-federal-election-administration-act-to-replace-the-fec/>:**

    In a letter sent
    today,<http://www.democracy21.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Reform-Group-Letter-Udall-Bill-3-1-16.pdf>reform
    groups urged Senators to cosponsor the Federal Election
    Administration Act being introduced today by Senator Tom Udall
    (D-NM). The Act provides a framework and the basis for developing a
    new legislative approach for properly enforcing and interpreting the
    campaign finance laws and creates a new independent agency to
    replace the FEC.

    The groups included Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy
    21, Issue One, People for the American Way, Public Citizen,
    Rootstrikers and U.S. PIRG.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80436&title=%26%238220%3BReform%20Groups%20Urge%20Senators%20to%20Support%20Federal%20Election%20Administration%20Act%20to%20Replace%20the%20FEC%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,federal 
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>


    “Machiavelli Would Love This Plot Twist From Banks’ Washington Book
    Club” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80434>

Posted onMarch 1, 2016 7:13 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80434>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bloomberg 
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-02-29/machiavelli-would-love-this-plot-twist-from-banks-dc-book-club>:

    A lobbyist generally donates $2,000 from their company’s political
    action committee at each meeting, though there is no required
    amount, the people said. Attendees are given a book, often signed by
    the congressman, and lunch.

    The group doesn’t operate like most literary clubs because members
    don’t read the selection in advance, so often the only person who
    has cracked the book is the lawmaker hosting. And even that isn’t
    always the case, say attendees.

Sounds totally legit.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80434&title=%26%238220%3BMachiavelli%20Would%20Love%20This%20Plot%20Twist%20From%20Banks%E2%80%99%20Washington%20Book%20Club%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,lobbying 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>

-- 
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/20160302/944d152f/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/20160302/944d152f/attachment.png>


View list directory