[EL] ELB News and Commentary 3/16/16
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Wed Mar 16 08:45:25 PDT 2016
Should Progressives Worry that Judge Garland Voted to Help Create
Super PACs? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80929>
Posted onMarch 16, 2016 8:38 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80929>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Judge Merrick Garland, now nominated by President Obama to serve on the
Supreme Court, was on the United States Court of Appeals for the DC
Circuit when it consideredSpeechNow v. FEC
<http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/speechnow_ac_opinion.pdf>, the case
that helped create Super PACs. Judge Garland joined a unanimous opinion
written by Judge Sentelle. I do not believe that Judge Garland’s vote in
SpeechNow indicates how he would vote if, for example, he faced a case
asking the Court to overturn /Citizens United/. It doesn’t say anything
one way or the other. Let me explain.
In /Buckley v. Valeo/, the Supreme Court held that individuals have a
constitutional right to spend money independently in elections. But the
court upheld contribution limits, and in a later case (CMA v. FEC), the
court upheld limits on contributions to political action committees by
individuals (set at $5,000). Before /Citizens United/, there was a
fierce debate in the academic community as to whether CMA stood for the
proposition that it was constitutional to limit contributions to PACs
which make only independent expenditures. The issue was not resolved.
In /Citizens United/, the Supreme Court held that not only individuals,
but also corporations (and presumably labor unions) have a
constitutional right to spend money independently in elections. But (as
I explain inthis Michigan Law Review
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1620576>article),
Citizens United did much more than just include that holding. It also
narrowed the definition of corruption and rejected other arguments that
the Court had before relied upon to uphold campaign finance laws.
When /SpeechNow/got to the DC Circuit, the Supreme Court’s signal was
clear:the logic was that iif independent spending can never corrupt (as
the Supreme Court held in Citizens United), then contributions to fund
independent spending by a PAC cannot corrupt. The /Citizens United/case
is cited 26 times(!) in /SpeechNow/. Look, if I were a judge on the DC
Circuit having to follow Supreme Court precedent I would have voted the
same way in /SpeechNow/, despite the fact that I think /Citizens
United/(and /Buckley/) should be overruled. That’s not the job of a
Circuit Court judge.
So I don’t think we can read anything into Judge
Garland’s/SpeechNow/vote as to how he would rule to overturn /Citizens
United/or in other campaign finance cases. In coming days I will look at
other opinions by Judge Garland in the election law and see what that
might say about him as a Justice (I have been doing this since the
nomination of John Roberts). So the jury is still out on this question.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80929&title=Should%20Progressives%20Worry%20that%20Judge%20Garland%20Voted%20to%20Help%20Create%20Super%20PACs%3F&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Democrats push SEC nominees on corporate political spending”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80927>
Posted onMarch 16, 2016 8:14 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80927>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Reuters reports.
<http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-sec-idUSKCN0WH2UC>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80927&title=%26%238220%3BDemocrats%20push%20SEC%20nominees%20on%20corporate%20political%20spending%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Traffic accident leads to voting snarl”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80925>
Posted onMarch 16, 2016 8:03 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80925>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Cincinnati Enquirer
<http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2016/03/15/ohio-vote-critical-kasich-trump/81646526/>:
Ohio’s primary went smoothly most of the day Tuesday, but a late
wrinkle in southwest Ohio caused some last-minute chaos.
A federal judge ordered polls in four southwest Ohio counties to
stay open an extra hour because of a major traffic accident on
I-275, which shut down the highway and stranded thousands of
motorists for much of the early evening. The problem, elections
officials say, is that the order came after polls already had closed
at 7:30 p.m.
U,S. District Judge Susan Dlott called Secretary of State Jon Husted
about her concerns shortly after 7:30 and then issued her written
order to keep the polls open at 8:13 p.m….
Overall, voting went smoothly throughout most of the day, though
voters at a Cleveland polling place got a scare when a man pulled a
gun from his backpack after arguing with a fellow poll worker. The
man ran away and no one was hurt. He was arrested a short time later.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80925&title=%26%238220%3BTraffic%20accident%20leads%20to%20voting%20snarl%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“A fair way to choose a Republican nominee”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80923>
Posted onMarch 16, 2016 7:59 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80923>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ramesh Ponnuru
<https://www.aei.org/publication/a-fair-way-to-choose-a-republican-nominee/>:
But the rules in the Republican primaries, as we are now seeing, are
not ideally designed to create consensus. Trump hasn’t won a
majority in any contest so far — and he could in theory keep failing
to win majorities and still come to the convention with a delegate
lead. If he had a majority of the delegates, even his fiercest
opponents within the Republican Party would have to concede that he
had won fair and square. Republican opposition to his nomination
would fade, too, if he had a big plurality built by a lot of state
majorities.
Different rules, as Francis Barryhas written
<http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-09/the-delegate-quirk-that-enabled-trump-s-rise>,
could make it more likely that in the future party nominations will
go to candidates with majority support. States could, for example,
hold runoff elections between the top two candidates in a primary.
Or they could hold “instant runoffs.” Take a race with three
candidates. Voters could rank those candidates. If none of them got
51 percent of voters to say he was their first choice, the candidate
with the fewest votes would be eliminated. Then his voters would be
reallocated to their second-choice candidate. The winner would then
be preferred by the majority.
It’s not too late to apply some version of this idea to the choice
of a Republican nominee. Republicans could change the rules of their
convention to permit some kind of preferential ballot. The rule
change would have to be proposed in advance, so that members of the
convention’s rules committee have time to consider it before voting
on it during the week before all the delegates arrive in Cleveland.
Then, if it passes the committee, a majority of delegates would have
to vote for it too.
When it came time for the delegates to vote on the presidential
nomination, delegates would rank their candidates — with pledged
delegates putting the candidates to whom they are pledged at the top
of their lists. It would probably also be necessary—to reduce the
likelihood of accusations of dirty tricks — for each delegate to
make his or her rank orderings public immediately after the vote.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80923&title=%26%238220%3BA%20fair%20way%20to%20choose%20a%20Republican%20nominee%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inalternative voting systems
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>,political parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,primaries
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
Richard Winger: Not Too Late for Third Party Bid to Challenge Trump
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80921>
Posted onMarch 16, 2016 7:56 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80921>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Richard writes:
Your blog pos <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80910>t says you can’t
believe it isn’t too late for conservatives to launch an independent
campaign for president.
John Anderson didn’t start petitioning as an independent until April
24, 1980, and he got on in all states. And the laws are better now
than they were in 1980.
Robert La Follette didn’t start until July 4, 1924, and he got on in
all states except Louisiana. And the Louisiana problem was not
related to the deadline.
Strom Thurmond didn’t decide to run as the Dixiecrat presidential
candidate until mid-July 1948, after the Dem national convention put
a civil rights plank in the platform. And he got on the ballot in
all the southern states, which is all he cared about.
Ross Perot didn’t start in 1992 until mid-March and he got on in
all ballots.
In 2000, the US State Department formally condemned Azerbaijan’s new
ballot access law, which said a new party had to register at least
six months before the election in order to participate.
Currently, all state deadlines are in June, July, August, and
September, except Texas is in May. Four states are in June, but
their deadlines are suspect under Anderson v Celebrezze. Five
states have had June deadlines invalidated for being too early:
Nevada, Arizona, South Dakota, Kansas, and Alaska. The Arizona
decision is Nader v Brewer, a 9th circuit reported opinion.
Also the conservatives might work with the Constitution Party, which
is already on the ballot in 16 states.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80921&title=Richard%20Winger%3A%20Not%20Too%20Late%20for%20Third%20Party%20Bid%20to%20Challenge%20Trump&description=>
Posted inballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>,third
parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=47>
“Campaign Finance Laws, Policy Outcomes, and Political Equality in
the American States” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80919>
Posted onMarch 16, 2016 7:47 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80919>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Patrick Flavin <http://prq.sagepub.com/content/68/1/77.abstract>in
Political Research Quarterly:
Laws that regulate the financing of campaigns are one attempt to
attenuate the role of money in politics and promote more egalitarian
policy outcomes. Do states with stricter campaign finance
regulations represent citizens’ interests more equally? Using data
on state spending priorities from 1977 to 2008, this article finds
that states with stricter campaign finance laws devote a larger
proportion of their annual budget to public welfare spending in
general and to cash assistance programs in particular. In contrast,
there is no relationship between the strictness of campaign finance
laws and spending decisions for non-redistributive policy areas. I
also investigate possible causal mechanisms and uncover evidence
that stricter campaign finance laws alter incentives for candidates
to respond to wealthy constituents by lessening the proportion of
contributions that originate from business interests. These results
suggest that laws that regulate the financing of political campaigns
can play an important role in promoting the interests of
disadvantaged citizens and enhancing political equality.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80919&title=%26%238220%3BCampaign%20Finance%20Laws%2C%20Policy%20Outcomes%2C%20and%20Political%20Equality%20in%20the%20American%20States%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
Trump Threatens Violence at Republican Convention
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80917>
Posted onMarch 16, 2016 7:42 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80917>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Holy cow! From Greg Sargent:
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/16/donald-trump-just-threatened-more-violence-only-this-time-its-directed-at-the-gop/?postshare=5491458137838181&tid=ss_tw>
But no sooner had this chatter started, then Trumpdropped another
bomb, by suggesting
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/16/trump-youd-have-riots-if-contested-convention-results-in-a-different-nominee/>this
morning on CNN that if he finishes with the most delegates, and the
nomination goes to someone else, that violence could result:
Trump said Wednesday that a contested GOP convention could be a
disaster if he goes to Cleveland a few delegates shy of 1,237 — and
doesn’t leave as the party’s nominee.
“I think you’d have riots,” Trump said on CNN.
Noting that he’s “representing many millions of people,” he told
Chris Cuomo: “If you disenfranchise those people, and you say, ‘I’m
sorry, you’re 100 votes short’…I think you’d have problems like
you’ve never seen before. I think bad things would happen.”
It’s hard to say whether this is intended as a threat or a
prediction. But the unsettling fact of the matter is that there is
no particular reason to rule out the former — that it was indeed
intended as a tacit threat, as least of a certain kind. Trump has
been playing a clever little game where he hints at the possibility
of violence while stopping short of explicitly threatening it — yet
he also doesn’t denounce such an outcome as unacceptable, so his
hints/effectively function/as a threat.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80917&title=Trump%20Threatens%20Violence%20at%20Republican%20Convention&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
Merrick Garland as Obama Compromise #SCOTUS Nominee, But Not (Only)
Because of His Moderate Politics <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80915>
Posted onMarch 16, 2016 7:16 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80915>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
In the moments after Justice Scalia’s death, my first thoughts (as
reflectedin this blog post <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79915>) was
that the President could well nominate Merrick Garland to fill Justice
Scalia’s spot on the Court. I wrote: “This is a highly polarized time,
and strong conservatives will fight VERY hard to have Republicans block
a liberal appointment to the Court. So the Obama administration faces
something of a choice. Nominate a hard-core liberal who could be
filibustered by a Republican Senate, or nominate someone more moderate
(Judge Garland?) who could PERHAPS get confirmed if enough Republicans
would be willing to go along.”
Garland is indeed a moderate, someone who will not excite the Democratic
base the way other nominations would. But the same could be said for
Sri Srinivasan, who seemed to havethe inside track
<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/709918292102656000> for the
nomination until moments before the Garland news leaked. While Garland
and Srinivasan may differ slightly on ideology, it is not enough to sway
Obama to choose one over the other.
So what explains Garland over Srinivasan? One possibility, as I
suggested on Twitter last night, is that Srinivasan did not want to be
nominated, to be the “pinata” with less than even odds of being
confirmed. He’d rather save himself for the next Democratic president.
That’s certainly one possibility.
The other is that Garland was chosen because he is significantly older
(63 vs 49). I have suggested (in the last chapter of Plutocrats United)
that one way to compromise on SCOTUS nominees is an 18 year term limit.
Appointing someone who is 63 moves in that direction. It gives the
President a win, but one which as a matter of probability and actuary
tables won’t be on the Court as long. It is a way for Obama to say that
he could have reached for greater power over SCOTUS, but compromised.
In short, Garland’s age, which may make some liberals oppose his
nomination, may be precisely what is attractive to the President who
actually wants to appoint someone to #SCOTUS, and not just put up the
human pinata.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80915&title=Merrick%20Garland%20as%20Obama%20Compromise%20%23SCOTUS%20Nominee%2C%20But%20Not%20%28Only%29%20Because%20of%20His%20Moderate%20Politics&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Ohio’s Confusing Republican Ballot <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80913>
Posted onMarch 15, 2016 4:07 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80913>byDan Tokaji
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=5>
Lots of Republicans voting in today’s Ohio primary are confused, and
understandably so. The Republican presidential candidates’ names are
listed twice onthe ballot
<http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Upload/elections/directives/2015/Dir2015-42-republican.pdf>,
once under the heading “For Delegates-at-Large and Alternates-at-Large”
and again under “For District Delegates and District Alternates.” If
this weren’t enough, different candidates’ names appear under the first
and second contests on some Ohio ballots. Mike Huckabee and/or Rick
Santorum, both of whom have withdrawn, will appear on the “District
Delegates” contest in some congressional districts but not others (see
p. 7 ofthis directive
<http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Upload/elections/directives/2015/Dir2015-42.pdf>).
What makes this a real head-scratcher is that the state’s Republican
primary is winner-take-all, with the highest vote-getter gettingall of
Ohio’s 66 delegates <http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/OH-R>. The
Secretary of State’s office will reportedly release vote totals for both
the “Delegates-at-Large” and “District Delegates” contests, but thestate
party says
<http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/04/ohios-gop-primary-ballot-confusion/81323608/>that
it plans to consider only the at-large delegate vote in determining who
gets Ohio’s delegates. And the “District Delegates” contest will appear
at the top of page on at least some ballots (likethis one
<https://vote.franklincountyohio.gov/assets/ballots/R_0953.PDF>), with
the “Delegates-at-Large” contest – the one that matters – further down
on the left side. This problem is reminiscent of problematic ballot
formats in past elections, like Florida’s 2006 election for the 13th
Congressional District, California’s 2003 recall election, and even the
infamous butterfly ballot in Florida’s 2000 presidential election. It’s
possible that some voters will inadvertently fail to cast a vote that
counts.
So what’s going on here? Why are the Republican presidential candidates
listed twice? Could this confusing ballot have been avoided? It’s
pretty clear that it could have been, though figuring out how this
happened – and who’s responsible– is a bit more complicated.
Theexplanation that’s been offered
<http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2016/03/youre_not_seeing_double_gop_pr.html>is
that the double-listing of the Republican candidates is a relic from the
proportional system used in past elections, which allowed candidates to
win delegates at the congressional district level even if they lost
statewide. Last year, Ohio’s Republican-controlled legislature enacted
a bill, signed by Governor Kasich, which moved the state primary date
back to March 15. That allowed for the state’s Republican delegates to
be allocated on a winner-take-all basis pursuant to national Republican
Party rules, a change perceived as helpful to Governor Kasich’s campaign
given the likelihood that he would win his home state.
The 2015 legislation (HB 153
<https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA131-HB-153>)
changed the primary date, the story goes, but didn’t change the law on
the ballot language. That’s true enough, but it doesn’t completely
explain the double-listing of candidates. After all,the Democratic
primary ballot
<https://vote.franklincountyohio.gov/assets/ballots/D_0953.PDF>lists the
candidates only once, even though therelevant
<http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3513.12v1>statutes
<http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3513.151v1>don’t differentiate between the
two major parties. Something else must be going on here.
The key provision appears to beOhio Revised Code 3513.151
<http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3513.151v1>. Subsection (B) addresses
at-large delegates, while subsection (C) addresses district delegates.
The latter subsection provides:
The state central committee of each major political party, through its
chairperson, not later than ninety days prior to the date of the
presidential primary election, shall file with the secretary of state a
statement that stipulates, in accordance with rules adopted by each
state central committee at a meeting open to all members of the
committee’s party, whether or not the names of candidates for district
delegate and district alternate to the national convention of that
chairperson’s party are to be printed on the ballot. The secretary of
state shall prescribe the form of the ballot for the election of
district delegates and district alternates of each political party in
accordance with such statement. If the state central committee of a
political party fails to so provide such statement, the secretary of
state shall prescribe a form of ballot on which the names of candidates
for delegate and alternate to such national convention do not appear on
the ballot.
The “names of candidates” referred to above are the convention delegate
candidates, not the presidential candidates. Presumably, the state
Republican and Democratic parties both filed the statements contemplated
by this statute, though I’ve yet found them. At any rate the Ohio
Secretary of State issuedthis directive
<http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Upload/elections/directives/2015/Dir2015-42.pdf>(2015-42)
at the end of last year, which prescribes the form of both theRepublican
<http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Upload/elections/directives/2015/Dir2015-42-republican.pdf>andDemocratic
<http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Upload/elections/directives/2015/Dir2015-42-democratic.pdf>ballots.
Neither lists the delegates’ names and, again, only the Republican
ballot double-lists the candidates.
It’s true that the major parties allocate their Ohio delegates
differently – Democrats doing so proportionally and Republicans on a
winner-take-all basis – but that doesn’t explain the different ballot
formats, especially since both parties have some at-large and some
district delegates. Though I’m not certain, I suspect that differences
in the parties’ statements to the Secretary of State explains why the
presidential candidates are listed twice on the Republican ballot but
only once on the Democratic ballot. (If anyone has information on this,
pleaseemail me
<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/faculty/professor/daniel-p-tokaji/>.) So it
looks like it’s probably the Ohio Republican Party that’s responsible
for this confusing ballot. I suppose it’s conceivable that something
nefarious is afoot, butHanlon’s Razor
<http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/43863-never-ascribe-to-malice-that-which-is-adequately-explained-by>makes
me inclined to believe that this is just a mistake.
Whatever the explanation, it’s a disservice to Ohio’s Republican voters.
And the consequences could be serious, since Ohio’s vote could well
determine whether Trump goes into the Cleveland convention with a
majority of delegates or, alternatively, whether there’s a contested
convention. I’m guessing it won’t just be election officials sayingthe
election officials’ prayer
<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/2008/11/calm-before-storm.html>in
Ohio tonight.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80913&title=Ohio%26%238217%3Bs%20Confusing%20Republican%20Ballot&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“Top conservatives gather to plot third-party run against Trump”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80910>
Posted onMarch 15, 2016 1:32 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80910>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Can’t believe it is nottoo late
<http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/top-conservatives-gather-to-plot-third-party-run-against-trump-220786>for
this.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80910&title=%26%238220%3BTop%20conservatives%20gather%20to%20plot%20third-party%20run%20against%20Trump%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>,third
parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=47>
“Alabama GOP: Keep Democrats out of our primary elections”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80906>
Posted onMarch 15, 2016 10:02 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80906>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Al.com reports.
<http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/03/alabama_gop_keeps_democrats_ou.html#incart_river_home>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80906&title=%26%238220%3BAlabama%20GOP%3A%20Keep%20Democrats%20out%20of%20our%20primary%20elections%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inpolitical parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,primaries
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
“Southern California Law and Social Sciences Forum 2016”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80904>
Posted onMarch 15, 2016 8:57 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80904>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
This will be another SOCLASS dynamite program:
Southern California Law and Social Sciences Forum 2016
*Are We Entering an Era of Dysfunction in American Government?*
*If So, Can It Be Stopped?*
**
Friday, March 18, 2016
University of California, San Diego
Co-Sponsored by UCSD’s Center for Tomorrow’s California
and The Yankelovich Center for Social Science Research
Location: Room 15A, The Village at Torrey Pines
//
/9:00-9:15. Welcome Remarks, Thad Kousser/
//
/9:15-10:45. The State of Union: Performance of National Political
Institutions/
Chair: Lane Kenworthy (UCSD)
Discussant: Mona Vakilifathi (UCSD)
Charles Shipan (Michigan), with Richard J. Anderson and David
Cottrell, “The Power to Appoint: Presidential Nominations and Change
on the Supreme Court”
Betsy Sinclair (Washington University St. Louis), “Dynamic
Congressional Approval: An ALT-ernative Approach”
Pamela McCann (USC Price), “House and Senate Negotiations and Policy
Choice”
Jordan Peterson (USC), “The Outer Limits of Bureaucratic Neutrality:
Private Financial Interests and Decision Making on the National
Labor Relations Board”
//
/11:00-12:30. Politics in an Age of Societal Division/
Chair: Isaac Martin (UCSD)
Discussant: Amanda Hollis-Brusky (Pomona)
Ken Miller (Claremont-McKenna), “Polarization and the Administrative
State”
Sarah Anderson (UC Santa Barbara), “Voters, Partisanship, and
Legislative Compromise”
Don Dripps (USD Law), “Race and Crime in the 21st Century”
Rachel VanSickle-Ward (Pitzer), “Religion, Women and Health: Gender
and Issue Framing in/Hobby Lobby/”
//
/1:00pm. Keynote Address and Discussion/
Nate Persily (Stanford Law), “Political Polarization: Sociological
Causes and Institutional Solutions”
/1:45-3:15pm. Laboratories for Reform: Will Changing Institutions
Change Behavior?/
Chair: Michael Ramsey (USD)
Discussant: Neil Malhotra (Stanford)
Abby Wood (USC Law) and Christian Grose (USC), “Campaign Finance
Transparency Improves Legislative Candidate Performance at the Polls”
Seth Hill (UCSD), “Institution of Nomination and the Policy Ideology
of Primary Electorates”
Andy Sinclair (NYU), “Tradeoffs in California’s Top-Two Primary”
Eric McGhee (Public Policy Institute of California), “Has the Top
Two Primary Elected More Moderates?”
//
/3:30-5:00pm. Governing Diversity: Challenges and Solutions/
Chair and Discussant: Marisa Abrajano (UCSD)
Discussant: Graeme Boushey (UCI)
//
Mila Sohoni (USD Law), “Crackdowns”
Jean Schroedel, Lily Rowen, and Roger Chin (Claremont Graduate
University), “Whose Lives Matter? The Media’s Failure to Cover
Police Shootings of Native Americans”
Allan Cobern (UC Riverside), “Immigrant Inclusion and Subfederal
Citizenship in the United States”
1.
Morgan Kousser (Caltech), “Joaquin Avila’s Noble Dream: The
CVRA and the Integration of Local Government in California”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80904&title=%26%238220%3BSouthern%20California%20Law%20and%20Social%20Sciences%20Forum%202016%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“JoAnne Kloppenburg stayed on case involving group that opposed her”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80902>
Posted onMarch 15, 2016 8:44 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80902>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/joanne-kloppenburg-stayed-on-case-involving-group-that-opposed-her-b99687501z1-372058071.html>
In her two bids for the state Supreme Court, JoAnne Kloppenburg has
criticized as too weak an ethics rule that says political spending on
its own isn’t enough to force a judge off a case.
But as an appeals judge in 2014, Kloppenburg remained on a case
involving a group that spent against her in her unsuccessful 2011
race for the high court. Her ruling kept alive an investigation of
Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign, the Wisconsin Club for Growth and
other conservative organizations.
The state Supreme Court latershut down that investigation
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/wisconsin-supreme-court-wont-reopen-john-doe-probe-rules-against-special-prosecutor-b99626790z1-359988701.html>,
finding no one had done anything wrong. Investigators had been
looking into whether the GOP governor and the groups had illegally
worked together in recall elections.
Kloppenburg is running in the April 5 election against Justice
Rebecca Bradley for a 10-year term on the high court.
In a meeting with Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editors and reporters
last week, Kloppenburg said there was no reason for her to step
aside from the case because the group had spent money against her,
not for her.
“When you have someone running ads for you there is a perception of
quid pro quo that doesn’t exist when someone is running ads against
you,” she said.
But Rick Esenberg, a lawyer backing Bradley, said Kloppenburg “has
some explaining to do” because of her decision to remain on the case
while opposing the ethics rule as too weak.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80902&title=%26%238220%3BJoAnne%20Kloppenburg%20stayed%20on%20case%20involving%20group%20that%20opposed%20her%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,conflict
of interest laws <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>,judicial elections
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>
“A Situation in Which Donald Trump Wins the White House”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80900>
Posted onMarch 15, 2016 7:50 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80900>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
John Harwood
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/us/politics/donald-trump-white-voters.html?ref=politics&_r=0>for
the NYT:
The number of white voters Mr. Trump attracts keeps shrinking as a
share of the electorate, while the number of nonwhite voters he
repels keeps growing, a pattern that helped President Obama retain
the White House.
Yet few political trends continue in a straight line. Some Democrats
have begun to cast a wary eye on Mr. Trump’s unconventional
candidacy. And now a group of political demographers has calculated
how Mr. Trump might pull off a narrow victory in November by
slightly increasing the share of the white vote gained by Mitt
Romney, the Republican nominee in 2012.
The group’s election model assumes continued growth among
African-American, Latino, Asian-American and other nonwhite voters,
as has occurred every four years since the Clinton era. It assumes
that constituencies for both parties turn out at the same rates as
in 2012.
Under those circumstances, the demographers found, an increase of
four percentage points in the proportion of whites backing Mr. Trump
could flip eight states that Mr. Obama carried in 2012. That would
give Mr. Trump a slim edge of 49.7 percent to 48.6 percent in the
popular vote and 315 electoral votes — 45 more than needed to win
the White House.
“It’s a hard thing to pull off,” said Ruy Teixeira, a co-authorof
the analysis
<https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/progressive-movement/news/2016/02/25/131668/election-oracle/>who
works at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. “But I
certainly wouldn’t rule it out.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80900&title=%26%238220%3BA%20Situation%20in%20Which%20Donald%20Trump%20Wins%20the%20White%20House%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
Lyle Denniston Previews Va Racial Gerrymandering Case, Argued Next
Week at #SCOTUS <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80898>
Posted onMarch 15, 2016 7:41 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80898>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here, at SCOTUSBlog
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/03/argument-preview-once-again-the-issue-is-race-2/>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80898&title=Lyle%20Denniston%20Previews%20Va%20Racial%20Gerrymandering%20Case%2C%20Argued%20Next%20Week%20at%20%23SCOTUS&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Analysis: Scant Evidence for Abbott’s ‘Rampant’ Voter Fraud”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80896>
Posted onMarch 15, 2016 7:37 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80896>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ross
Ramsey<http://www.texastribune.org/2016/03/15/analysis-scant-evidence-abbott-rampant-voter-fraud/>for
the Texas Tribune.
Yup <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80882>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80896&title=%26%238220%3BAnalysis%3A%20Scant%20Evidence%20for%20Abbott%26%238217%3Bs%20%26%238216%3BRampant%26%238217%3B%20Voter%20Fraud%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,fraudulent fraud squad
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“Division among Koch donors over failure to stop Donald Trump”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80894>
Posted onMarch 15, 2016 7:36 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80894>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Guardian reports.
<http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/15/koch-brothers-republican-donors-disappointed-donald-trump-attacks?CMP=share_btn_tw>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D80894&title=%26%238220%3BDivision%20among%20Koch%20donors%20over%20failure%20to%20stop%20Donald%20Trump%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Defining the Press Exemption from Campaign Finance Restrictions”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80892>
Posted onMarch 15, 2016 7:30 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80892>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
New /Harvard Law Review/student note.
<http://harvardlawreview.org/2016/03/defining-the-press-exemption-from-campaign-finance-restrictions/?platform=hootsuite>
I address this question in detail in a chapter ofPlutocrats United.
<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%3D80892&title=%26%238220%3BDefining%20the%20Press%20Exemption%20from%20Campaign%20Finance%20Restrictions%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
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/20160316/77801088/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/20160316/77801088/attachment.png>
View list directory