[EL] ELB News and Commentary 3/21/16
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Mon Mar 21 07:57:44 PDT 2016
“First Step in Conservatives’ Supreme Court Fight: Agreeing on a
Message” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81085>
Posted onMarch 21, 2016 7:56 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81085>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Eric Lipton
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/21/us/politics/first-step-in-conservatives-supreme-court-fight-agreeing-on-a-message.html?ref=politics>in
the NYT:
FreedomWorks allowed a reporter rare access to the organization as
Mr. Levey and his staff put their plan to stop Mr. Obama’s nominee
into action from the organization’s bowling alley-shaped war room, a
few blocks from Capitol Hill….
What complicates the effort for conservatives is that prominent
activists like Mr. Levey have previously been complimentary of Judge
Garland. Mr. Levey, for example,in an email to other conservatives
in 2012
<http://www.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887324073504578105252699224578-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwNzEwNDcyWj.html>,
said that Mr. Obama should not consider nominating “anyone to the
left of Merrick Garland” to the Supreme Court, implying that Judge
Garland was acceptable, as opposed to the president’s more liberal
previous nominees, such as Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Mr. Levey, as he prepared for his series of television appearances,
struggled to explain his previous remarks.
“They could nominate my mother, who I have said very good things
about over the years,” he said. “But this close to the election,
with the balance of the court on the line, the American people
should get a chance to weigh in.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81085&title=%26%238220%3BFirst%20Step%20in%20Conservatives%E2%80%99%20Supreme%20Court%20Fight%3A%20Agreeing%20on%20a%20Message%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Donald Trump Is Finally Uniting Top Republican Donors — Against
Him” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81083>
Posted onMarch 21, 2016 7:53 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81083>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/21/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-donors.html?ref=politics>:
Some of the wealthiest conservative givers in the country are
helping pay for a series of last-ditch attacks to wound Mr. Trump,
disclosures filed on Sunday night revealed, even after previously
backing rival Republican candidates. And officials involved with the
political groups have made clear that they are aggressively raising
more money to fight Mr. Trump, hoping to deprive him of enough
delegates to win the Republican nomination outright. That would set
the stage for a contested convention in July.
Our Principles PAC, a group set up to highlight Mr. Trump’s past
liberal positions, took in $4.8 million last month, with a roster of
donors that shows it has significantly expanded beyond the Ricketts
family, which provided the group’s early funding.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81083&title=%26%238220%3BDonald%20Trump%20Is%20Finally%20Uniting%20Top%20Republican%20Donors%20%E2%80%94%20Against%20Him%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“These Right-Wing Groups Are Gearing Up for an Onslaught on Obama’s
Supreme Court Nominee” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81081>
Posted onMarch 21, 2016 7:50 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81081>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Stephanie
Mencimer<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/right-wing-groups-gearing-up-onslaught-merrick-garland-supreme-court>for
MoJo:
This face-off could well be nastier and more expensive than past
confrontations over the Supreme Court. It’s the first political
fight of this kind since the controversial/Citizens United/
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/>decision
allowed money to flow freely into the political system. The influx
of money has also helped create a well-funded extra-party political
infrastructure that is now turning its sights on the SCOTUS fight.
Thanks to/Citizens United/, campaign finance rules that once limited
the use of corporate and union money for certain advertisements no
longer exist. Meanwhile, dark-money groups—which can get involved in
campaigns but don’t have to disclose their donors—are supposed to
spend slightly more than half of their money on nonelection
activities to keep their nonprofit status. As a result, they “may
funnel a lot of the rest of their money into Supreme Court-related
ads,” says Rick Hasen, an election law professor at the University
of California-Irvine law school
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81081&title=%26%238220%3BThese%20Right-Wing%20Groups%20Are%20Gearing%20Up%20for%20an%20Onslaught%20on%20Obama%26%238217%3Bs%20Supreme%20Court%20Nominee%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA started March with $44 million
war chest” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81079>
Posted onMarch 21, 2016 7:48 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81079>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo reports.
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/20/pro-clinton-super-pac-priorities-usa-started-march-with-44-million-war-chest/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81079&title=%26%238220%3BPro-Clinton%20super%20PAC%20Priorities%20USA%20started%20March%20with%20%2444%20million%20war%20chest%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Plutocrats Protected” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81077>
Posted onMarch 21, 2016 7:37 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81077>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Steve Klein
<http://www.libertylawsite.org/2016/03/21/plutocrats-protected/>reviewingmy
book
<http://www.amazon.com/Plutocrats-United-Campaign-Distortion-Elections/dp/0300212453>at
Library of Law and Liberty:
Hasen tries to balance political equality with free speech and, to
his credit, his legal proposals and his philosophical arguments are
both far friendlier to the Constitution than those of the vast
majority of campaign-finance reformers. Nevertheless, his model
would still require a robust federal agency more powerful than the
current Federal Election Commission to enforce its limits.
Inevitably this involves the policing of speech, to a degree that is
at least as draconian as—and certainly more expensive than—the
current regime….
One could lodge many more objections to injecting
equality-of-condition notions into constitutional law. But doing so
isn’t really necessary, for Hasen’s thesis is undone by his own
arguments. Under his regime, moneyed Americans would retain their
nearly exclusive ability to overcome the barriers to entry erected
by campaign-finance law.
And let’s be clear, this is not only a free speech problem; it is a
“political equality” problem no matter how you define it./Plutocrats
United/is but the latest work to fail to come to terms with this
dilemma. No surprise, because it is an inseverable feature of
campaign-finance reform.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81077&title=%26%238220%3BPlutocrats%20Protected%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Plutocrats United
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Judge Garland and Buckley Jurisprudence in the Citizens United Era”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81075>
Posted onMarch 21, 2016 7:34 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81075>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bauer blogs.
<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2016/03/judge-garland-buckley-jurisprudence-citizens-united-era/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81075&title=%26%238220%3BJudge%20Garland%20and%20Buckley%20Jurisprudence%20in%20the%20Citizens%20United%20Era%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Will a Liberal Supreme Court Limit Money in Politics?”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81073>
Posted onMarch 21, 2016 7:32 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81073>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Mark Schmitt NYT oped
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/21/opinion/campaign-stops/will-a-liberal-supreme-court-limit-money-in-politics.html?ref=opinion&_r=1>:
So imagine that a Democratic president’s nominee is eventually
confirmed, and at the next opportunity, Citizens United is reversed.
What happens next? Will money lose its hold on American politics?
Probably not — though not because money in politics doesn’t matter.
Citizens United stands at the end of a long line of decisions that
have weakened Congress’s ability to limit money in politics, not all
of them wrongly decided. Instead of rolling back all those
decisions, we should seek to balance, rather than limit, money, and
make it easier for people without wealth to run and be heard.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81073&title=%26%238220%3BWill%20a%20Liberal%20Supreme%20Court%20Limit%20Money%20in%20Politics%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Wittman v. Personhuballah, The Term’s Standing-Law Sleeper”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81071>
Posted onMarch 21, 2016 7:29 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81071>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Asher Steinberg
<http://narrowestgrounds.blogspot.com/2016/03/wittman-v-personhuballah-terms-standing.html>:
In sum,/Personhuballah/has the potential to remake standing in
election law, moving candidates and their lost chances of electoral
success to the forefront of districting litigation where they’ve
always belonged. But/Personhuballah/also has the potential to be a
seminal case about appellate standing more generally
andprobabilistic injury. And with/Spokeo/likely to be affirmed by a
divided court, it may be the only big standing decision this term we
get.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81071&title=%26%238220%3BWittman%20v.%20Personhuballah%2C%20The%20Term%26%238217%3Bs%20Standing-Law%20Sleeper%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Quote of the Day: Ted Cruz Voter Fraud Joke Edition
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81069>
Posted onMarch 20, 2016 9:48 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81069>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
“If Donald (Trump) is our nominee, Hillary (Clinton) wins. So go out
there and vote for me 10 times on Tuesday. Just kidding, I’m not a
Democrat. I don’t believe in voter fraud.”
—Ted Cruz
<http://www.krem.com/news/nation-now/cruz-tells-ariz-churchgoers-a-vote-for-kasich-is-a-vote-for-trump/93043269>,
quoted by KREM
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81069&title=Quote%20of%20the%20Day%3A%20Ted%20Cruz%20Voter%20Fraud%20Joke%20Edition&description=>
Posted infraudulent fraud squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>
“The Right to ‘Mobocracy’” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81067>
Posted onMarch 20, 2016 9:40 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81067>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Henry Olsen reviews
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-right-to-mobocracy-1458504714>Michael
Waldman’s book,The Fight to Vote
<http://www.amazon.com/The-Fight-Vote-Michael-Waldman/dp/1501116487>, in
the WSJ:
But Mr. Waldman’s partisan perspective on the current voting wars
mars the book. He sharply criticizes those who support voter ID
laws, contending that their stated motivation—stopping voter
fraud—is merely an excuse for denying Democratic-leaning
constituencies the ballot. He reserves special ire for the Supreme
Court, which in recent years has opposed his views in cases
like/Citizens United/, which ruled that a 1907 congressional ban on
corporate contributions to political campaigns was unconstitutional,
and/Shelby County v. Holder/, which overturned Section 4 of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965—Mr. Waldman uses the word “eviscerated.”
Yet Mr. Waldman’s proposed reforms deserve serious consideration.
Reforming felon disenfranchisement laws, for example, is supported
by figures on the right and the left. Providing for universally
available picture IDs and electronic, picture-enabled voting rolls
would be an interesting left-right compromise to address both sides’
concerns. Replacing easy-to-manipulate early absentee voting with
strictly supervised in-person balloting is another idea with
potential. Mr. Waldman would have better served his readers had he
spent more time explaining these smart policy proposals rather than
engaging in an anticonservative jeremiad.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81067&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20Right%20to%20%E2%80%98Mobocracy%E2%80%99%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Montana GOP challenges cross-over voters”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81065>
Posted onMarch 20, 2016 9:12 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81065>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Lyle Denniston on SCOTUSBlog
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/03/montana-gop-challenges-cross-over-voters/>about
the petition from the Montana Republican Party pending at the Supreme Court.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81065&title=%26%238220%3BMontana%20GOP%20challenges%20cross-over%20voters%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inpolitical parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,primaries
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Some Republicans Covet Libertarian Ballot Line
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81063>
Posted onMarch 20, 2016 8:00 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81063>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WSJ
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-chairman-reince-priebus-sees-long-fight-over-donald-trump-1458517799?mod=e2fb>:
The search for ballot access has led some Republicans to look toward
the Libertarian Party, which has gained access to 31 states and
expects to be on all state ballots by the fall.
“The interest in what we are doing has certainly grown,” said
Nicholas Sarwark, chairman of the party’s national committee, adding
that the Libertarian convention in May would be open and fully
contested, though former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson appears to be
the favorite.
Still, Mr. Sarwark said he doubted that delegates at the party’s
convention would smile upon “someone with a lot of money or name
recognition” trying to secure the Libertarian nomination at the last
minute.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81063&title=Some%20Republicans%20Covet%20Libertarian%20Ballot%20Line&description=>
Posted inballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Jeb Bush pumped $400,000 into his campaign in final weeks to keep
it afloat” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81061>
Posted onMarch 20, 2016 7:33 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81061>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/20/jeb-bush-pumped-400000-into-his-campaign-in-final-weeks-to-keep-it-afloat/>:
While Bush’s campaign was running out of cash, his allied super PAC
still had ample resources. Right to Rise USA raised just under
$179,000 in February but still ended the month with $16 million
left of its $119 million haul, according to the group’s latest FEC
report. Bush and his advisers had initially believed that having a
well-stocked super PAC would be one of his greatest assets. He spent
the first half of last year raising large sums for Right to Rise,
all while maintaining that he had not yet decided whether to jump in
the race. But the super PAC’s wealth could not overcome the lack of
enthusiasm in the GOP base for the former governor.
In all, since beginning his run last year, the former governor put
nearly $800,000 of his personal funds into his White House bid,
raising $35 million in total. He ended February with $465,000 in the
bank but $452,000 in debt. Among those still owed money was U.S.
Safety & Security ($56,021), ATX Air Services ($23,821) and IT
consultant Yuma Services ($13,341).
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81061&title=%26%238220%3BJeb%20Bush%20pumped%20%24400%2C000%20into%20his%20campaign%20in%20final%20weeks%20to%20keep%20it%20afloat%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Va. Republicans take redistricting fight to the Supreme Court”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81059>
Posted onMarch 20, 2016 7:28 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81059>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bob Barnes
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/va-republicans-take-redistricting-fight-to-the-supreme-court/2016/03/20/876e9dee-eabf-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html> and
Jenna Portnoy for WaPo:
The Supreme Court will take another shot at that in the Virginia
case. A panel of federal judges said the commonwealth’s plan veered
from partisan gerrymandering aimed at protecting incumbents — for
which the Supreme Court has shown a high tolerance — into racial
gerrymandering, which the Constitution forbids.
In a sense, said Nathaniel Persily, an election-law expert at
Stanford Law School, “the Voting Rights Act is on a collision course
with the Constitution.”
The questions for Virginia and other states are, he said, “how much
can you think about race in construction of districts, and is the
use of race in aid of partisan gerrymandering problematic?”
The line is increasingly elusive, especially across the South, where
blacks are presumed to be Democrats and whites are increasingly
Republican.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81059&title=%26%238220%3BVa.%20Republicans%20take%20redistricting%20fight%20to%20the%20Supreme%20Court%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“The Mutual Dependence of Trump and the News Media”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81057>
Posted onMarch 20, 2016 7:22 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81057>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Must-read
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/21/business/media/the-mutual-dependence-of-trump-and-the-news-media.html?_r=1>Jim
Rutenberg debut “Mediator” column in the NYT.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81057&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20Mutual%20Dependence%20of%20Trump%20and%20the%20News%20Media%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Judge’s Lower Bar for Third Party Candidates Intrigues Republican
Election Lawyers” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81055>
Posted onMarch 20, 2016 7:17 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81055>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Daily Report:
<http://www.dailyreportonline.com/id=1202752600719?slreturn=20160220221149>
The chairman of the Republican National Lawyers Association said
Friday that a federal judge’s decision to strike down Georgia’s
ballot access law as unconstitutionally restrictive could have
national ramifications for the 2016 presidential race.
U.S. District Judge Richard Story’s March 17 order in the
four-year-old case brought by Georgia’s Green Party and Constitution
Party would significantly lower the qualifying threshold for
third-party candidates seeking a place on this year’s presidential
ballot.
Randy Evans, a Dentons partner in Atlanta who is also a member of
the Republican National Committee’s rules committee, called Story’s
order “particularly noteworthy” given that it “comes at a time when
institutional powerbrokers are meeting in Washington, D.C., to
discuss the creation of another party should Donald Trump become the
GOP nominee.”…
tory’s 80-page order, handed down Thursday, permanently bars
Georgia’s secretary of state from making political organizations
that want to place candidates on the statewide presidential ballot
first collect signatures from 1 percent—or more than 50,000—of the
state’s registered voters. Instead, Story set the bar for the 2016
presidential race at just 7,500 signatures.
The judge wrote that the 7,500-signature requirement is an interim
measure that will expire when the Georgia General Assembly enacts a
permanent—and constitutional—provision.
Richard Winger
<http://ballot-access.org/2016/03/17/u-s-district-court-invalidates-georgia-petition-requirement-for-president-imposes-temporary-standard-of-7500-signatures/>has
thedecision.
<http://ballot-access.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Georgia-win-president.pdf>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81055&title=%26%238220%3BJudge%26%238217%3Bs%20Lower%20Bar%20for%20Third%20Party%20Candidates%20Intrigues%20Republican%20Election%20Lawyers%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,third parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=47>
“IL County Attorney on Extraordinary Court Order Mandating ‘Late
Voting’ Next Week in Adams: ‘BradCast’ 3/18/2016”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81053>
Posted onMarch 20, 2016 7:11 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81053>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Brad Friedman <http://bradblog.com/?p=11619>:
I’m joined on today’s /BradCast/ <http://bradblog.com/BradCast>by
Adams County, IL State’s Attorney*Jon Barnard*to discuss the
extraordinarycourt order [PDF]
<http://bradblog.com/Docs/AdamsCountyIL_LateVotingOrder_031616.pdf>issued
just last night to mandate the county allow votersturned away
<http://www.whig.com/article/20160315/ARTICLE/303159795>from the
polls last Tuesday, due to ballot shortages, to cast a “late vote”
in that election Monday through Friday of next week. [/Audio link to
the complete show is at the end of this article./]
I’ve never seen a court-ordered remedy like it and, apparently,
neither have any of the experts I spoke to. That’s for good reason:
this may be a national precedent, certainly one in the state of
Illinois. It’s also one that, as I learned from Barnard — who was
just out of another court hearing on this matter today — the
Illinois state Attorney General is now moving to block.
As I noted (okay, ranted about) onWednesday’s program
<http://bradblog.com/?p=11616>, an untold number of voters were
unable to cast a vote at all across precincts in Adams (Quincy) and
other counties around the state on Tuesday, thanks to local election
officials underestimating the number of paper ballots that would be
needed, despite huge voter turnout elsewhere around the country
during this Presidential Primary season so far.
“People couldn’t vote because of, essentially, a government
failure,” Barnard charges. “They have the right to vote. It needs to
be restored. It needs to be protected.”
He explained how he came up with the idea for this extraordinary
remedy after an estimated 3,400 voters
<http://www.whig.com/article/20160317/ARTICLE/303179787#>were turned
away on Tuesday, and why he believes it’s so important. “Yes, it is
unprecedented, at least to my knowledge, that someone has sought
this remedy,” he says. “But you know what, Brad? In a situation like
this, we’ve got to do/something/. And there’s got to be a first
time. It might as well be here, it might as well be now. This is an
emergency. It’s not an exaggeration to say that we ask people to die
to protect this right. I don’t think it’s going too far or doing too
much that we have instituted an emergency measure with sufficient
safeguards to restore that right to people who have been denied that
right. When we ask people, quite literally, to dive on grenades so
that we can have this right, I’m going to do everything I think we
ought to do to protect that right. And if this is the first time,
then so be it.”
The County’s long-time Republican prosecutor describes the
safeguards that will be implemented — including an affidavit that
voters must sign under penalty of perjury, attesting that they had
attempted but were unable to vote on Tuesday, due to the shortages —
which he believes are “more than sufficient to minimize the
opportunity for mischief in the process.” He also explains why he
“didn’t buy” the argument raised in court that allowing voters to
vote, after preliminary results have already been announced, would
be unfair. That, even in the wake of close elections in the state,
like the one between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
Fascinating.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81053&title=%26%238220%3BIL%20County%20Attorney%20on%20Extraordinary%20Court%20Order%20Mandating%20%26%238216%3BLate%20Voting%26%238217%3B%20Next%20Week%20in%20Adams%3A%20%26%238216%3BBradCast%26%238217%3B%203%2F18%2F2016%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“FAN 101.2 (First Amendment News) Judge Garland on the First
Amendment: Opinions & Votes” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81051>
Posted onMarch 20, 2016 7:08 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81051>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ron Collins blogs
<http://concurringopinions.com/archives/2016/03/fan-101-2-first-amendment-news-judge-garland-on-the-first-amendment-opinions-votes.html>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81051&title=%26%238220%3BFAN%20101.2%20%28First%20Amendment%20News%29%20Judge%20Garland%20on%20the%20First%20Amendment%3A%20Opinions%20%26%23038%3B%20Votes%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“How John Kasich Could End Up Picking the Next President; A bizarre,
tangled, 130-year-old law could leave the 2016 election up to the
Ohio governor—unless Congress acts now
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81049>
Posted onMarch 20, 2016 1:15 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81049>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ned Foley
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/the-bizarre-130-year-old-law-that-could-determine-our-next-president-213645>for
Politico:
In this situation, the Supreme Court could step in to resolve the
dispute. But the odds of that happening have probably decreased due
to the vociferous criticism of the/Bush v. Gore/decision. Not to
mention that in the wake of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, there
could still be only eight sitting justices in November; that also
makes it more likely the court will stay out of the matter this time.
Under the Constitution’s Twelfth Amendment, the fight would then
fall to Congress—which entirely lacks adequate procedures to decide
a presidential election. In fact, the process for settling election
disputes is so messy and uncertain that even experts disagree about
how it’s supposed to work.
What Congress does have is that tangled 809-word statute passed in
1887 as part of the Electoral Count Act. The statute is intended to
resolve disputes when a single state submits two different Electoral
College vote counts—for instance, if there’s a contested county and
its votes are enough to swing the state—and the Senate and House
then split over which of the two counts to accept. With language so
convoluted it was deemed “unintelligible” by the nation’s leading
political scientist at the time of enactment, the law leaves
debatable exactly what’s supposed to happen in this situation.
Passed as a stopgap measure, it has never been replaced with a
clearer or more executable plan.
A key provision of the act says that if the House and Senate are
split, the governor of the state in dispute becomes the tiebreaker.
This provision, still with us, presents two problems. First is the
possibility of a serious conflict of interest for the governor. For
instance, in 2000, Florida Governor Jeb Bush might have been tasked
with deciding the election that his brother George went on to win.
(That eyebrow-raising scenario did not come to pass because the
Supreme Court decided/Bush v. Gore/before the Electoral College
meeting in Florida that year, so Florida sent only one set of
Electoral College votes to Congress after Al Gore conceded defeat.)
This year, if Ohio turns out to be the pivotal state, as is
certainly plausible, Governor Kasich might be in a position to pick
the winner single-handedly. This would be strange enough if he’s
just a former contender in the race, and stranger still if he is the
GOP’s presidential or vice-presidential candidate.
The second problem is that the law is so hopelessly
incomprehensible, it’s ambiguous as to whether the
governor-as-tiebreaker scenario applies in all cases in which a
single state sends two Electoral College submissions to Congress, or
only in a much narrower subset of these cases. The latter view holds
that, except for in some relatively rare situations, Congress is
obligated to treat the disputed state’s Electoral College
proceedings as null-and-void regardless of what the governor
certifies. In the Ohio hypothetical, the debate would be whether to
count Ohio’s votes as certified by Kasich, or instead to toss out
the votes entirely as uncountable. Proponents of each interpretation
of the law could cite arcane scholarly articles in support of their
dueling positions, but the debate would hardly be academic—each view
would produce a different presidential winner.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81049&title=%26%238220%3BHow%20John%20Kasich%20Could%20End%20Up%20Picking%20the%20Next%20President%3B%20A%20bizarre%2C%20tangled%2C%20130-year-old%20law%20could%20leave%20the%202016%20election%20up%20to%20the%20Ohio%20governor%E2%80%94unless%20Congress%20acts%20now&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,electoral
college <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=44>
“Garland Would Move Supreme Court to Left, But How Far?”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81047>
Posted onMarch 20, 2016 1:11 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81047>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Mark Sherman
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_GARLAND_HOW_LIBERAL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>for
AP:
Harder to predict, based on his record, is what Garland would do in
cases that ask the high court to jettison one of its decisions.
As it happens, that’s precisely what Sanders and his Democratic
rival Hillary Clinton want the court to do with the 2010 Citizens
United ruling on campaign finance that’s hated by their party.
Citizens United was a 5-4 outcome with Scalia in the majority.
Garland’s record in campaign finance cases in recent years is mixed.
He joined his colleagues in a unanimous vote to strike down limits
on contributions to independent advocacy groups, a decision that led
to the rise of super political action committees.
The court concluded that its ruling in March 2010 was compelled by
the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case two months
earlier that freed corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited
sums of money in elections for Congress and president, though
independent of any campaign for office.
In a second case, Garland wrote for a unanimous court last July to
uphold a 70-year-old ban on campaign contributions from people who
hold contracts with the federal government. Garland wrote that the
ban was in line with the government’s interest in preventing corruption.
Election law expert Richard Hasen of the University of California at
Irvine law school wrote that he is persuaded that Garland would vote
to uphold challenged campaign finance restrictions like the one he
confronted last year.
And if he had been on the court when Citizens United was decided, he
would have been with the dissenters, Hasen said. But the issue now
is whether Garland would be willing to overturn the ruling.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81047&title=%26%238220%3BGarland%20Would%20Move%20Supreme%20Court%20to%20Left%2C%20But%20How%20Far%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“How ‘ghost corporations’ are funding the 2016 election”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81045>
Posted onMarch 18, 2016 8:50 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81045>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-ghost-corporations-are-funding-the-2016-election/2016/03/18/2446e526-ed14-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html?postshare=9701458349114072&tid=ss_tw>:
The 2016 campaign has already seen the highest rate of corporate
donations since the Supreme Court unleashed such spending with its
2010/Citizens United v. FEC/decision.
One out of every eight dollars collected by super PACs this election
cycle have come from corporate coffers, including millions flowing
from opaque and hard-to-trace entities, according to a Washington
Post analysis of federal campaign finance filings.
So far, 680 companies have given at least $10,000 to a super PAC
this cycle, together contributing nearly $68 million through
Jan. 31, The Post found. Their donations made up 12 percent ofthe
$549 million raised by such groups
<http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?chrt=V&type=S>,
which can accept unlimited donations.
That means corporations are on track to far exceed the $86 million
they gave to super PACs in the entire 2012 presidential cycle, when
such donations totaled 10 percent of the money raised by such
groups, according to data from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive
Politics.
Many corporate givers this cycle are well-established hedge funds,
energy companies and real estate firms. But a significant share of
the money is coming from newly formed LLCs with cryptic names that
offer few clues about their backers.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81045&title=%26%238220%3BHow%20%E2%80%98ghost%20corporations%E2%80%99%20are%20funding%20the%202016%20election%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
Donald Trump with About $2 Billion in Free Media, Dwarfing Other
Candidates <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81043>
Posted onMarch 18, 2016 1:48 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81043>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT’s The Upshot.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81043&title=Donald%20Trump%20with%20About%20%242%20Billion%20in%20Free%20Media%2C%20Dwarfing%20Other%20Candidates&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Garland selection proves that to Obama, DC doesn’t count”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81040>
Posted onMarch 18, 2016 1:41 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81040>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Mark Plotkin
<http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-judiciary/273514-garland-selection-proves-that-to-obama-dc-doesnt-count>:
Garland wrote the opinion that crushed D.C.’s hope of joining
America as first-class citizens. Relying on the condition that D.C.
citizens were not residents of a “state,” we were then automatically
denied the right to be represented in the U.S. House and Senate. As
I said in a previous column, this was a classic illustration of
voter suppression.
I discussed that case yesterday in mybroader review
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80981>of Judge Garland’s election law
decisions.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81040&title=%26%238220%3BGarland%20selection%20proves%20that%20to%20Obama%2C%20DC%20doesn%26%238217%3Bt%20count%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Facing criticism, NYC mayor to shutter nonprofit group”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81038>
Posted onMarch 18, 2016 1:39 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81038>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP:
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b76e78b8f61c4f7f8fcccf0357a11307/facing-criticism-nyc-mayor-shutter-nonprofit-group>
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said Thursday he has begun
shutting down the nonprofit group that was advancing his political
agenda, a move that comes just weeks after a government watchdog
called for a probe into its actions.
His group, dubbed the Campaign for One New York, was not bound by
city campaign finance laws and could accept unlimited contributions
from donors. It used that money to promote some of de Blasio’s
signature policy initiatives, including universal pre-K and a
rezoning plan that would aid in his effort to build more affordable
housing.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81038&title=%26%238220%3BFacing%20criticism%2C%20NYC%20mayor%20to%20shutter%20nonprofit%20group%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Voter ID Laws: A Closer Look” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81036>
Posted onMarch 18, 2016 1:17 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81036>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Seth Meyers video.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfJeuk9Qizw> (corrected link)
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81036&title=%26%238220%3BVoter%20ID%20Laws%3A%20A%20Closer%20Look%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>
“De Minimis is Not Dead in Campaign Finance”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81034>
Posted onMarch 18, 2016 12:55 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81034>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Steve Klein blogs.
<https://www.pillaroflaw.org/index.php/blog/entry/de-minimis-is-not-dead-in-campaign-finance>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81034&title=%26%238220%3BDe%20Minimis%20is%20Not%20Dead%20in%20Campaign%20Finance%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Utah Republicans Open Caucuses to Online Voters”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81032>
Posted onMarch 18, 2016 11:28 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81032>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WSJ
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/utah-republicans-open-caucuses-to-online-voters-1458324718>:
In what is expected to be one of the biggest online votes conducted
so far in the U.S., Utah residents will have the option of casting
ballots in the Republican presidential contest using computers,
tablets and smartphones next week.
In-person caucuses and absentee voting also will remain options for
GOP voters in the March 22 contest. Democrats aren’t offering an
online option.
It is the largest experiment with online presidential voting since
2004, when Michigan allowed Democrats to vote in a party caucus via
the Internet. Estonia has had online voting in national elections
since 2005, while Norway, France, Canada and Australia have
experimented with it….
Skeptics say that it is unlikely to be adopted broadly, given the
increasing awareness of cybersecurity and online vulnerabilities.
“The average citizen is starting to realize how insecure the
Internet is,” said Avi Rubin, a computer security expert at Johns
Hopkins University who has studied electronic voting systems.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81032&title=%26%238220%3BUtah%20Republicans%20Open%20Caucuses%20to%20Online%20Voters%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,voting technology
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40>
“Editorial: What was judge thinking?”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81030>
Posted onMarch 18, 2016 10:45 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81030>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Cincinnati Enquirer
<http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/editorials/2016/03/18/editorial-judge-thinking/81961940/>:
U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott said she decided to keep the polls
open becausea traffic crash closed Interstate 275 on the bridge near
Kellogg Avenue
<http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2016/03/15/east--275-closed-near-kellogg-ave-after-report-car-water/81826398/>–
a major commuter route between Downtown and points east.
Dlott made the decision without benefit of either a written
complaint or a hearing. It was based on calls to her office from
voters stuck in traffic, she said.
“People were using their cell phones from the highway. They wanted
to vote,”she told The Enquirer’s Dan Horn
<http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/16/judge-stranded-drivers-wanted-vote/81858150/>.
“I did what I thought I had to do under the law.”
An expert on the federal courts told Horn he has never heard
anything like it, and Secretary of State Jon Husted told The
Enquirer editorial board the same.
“It’s not the way the law is supposed to work,” Husted said. “It’s
not the way due process works. It’s not the way to run a fair election.”
The editorial board agrees.
Dlott was appointed to the court by Democratic President Bill
Clinton, and Husted is a Republican, but this isn’t a political
issue. It’s an issue of little-D democracy.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81030&title=%26%238220%3BEditorial%3A%20What%20was%20judge%20thinking%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“Grassley Presses for Answers on Obama Administration Impeding
Independent Voting Agency” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81028>
Posted onMarch 18, 2016 10:38 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81028>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Release:
<http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-presses-answers-obama-administration-impeding-independent-voting-agency>
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley is asking
questions about the Justice Department’s refusal to defend the
actions of the Election Assistance Commission, an independent
federal agency without litigation authority, despite the law
requiring the department to represent the commission in court. The
Justice Department’s actions could result in state voter ID laws not
being followed and non-citizens being allowed to vote.
Specifically, at issue is the Justice Department’s unprecedented
action in the case League of Women Voters of the U.S., et al. v.
Brian Newby, et al. Although the Election Assistance Commission is
an independent agency that is supposed to be outside of the control
of the administration, it is required by law to have the Justice
Department represent it in litigation because the commission does
not have its own litigation authority. However, in an unheard of
act, the Justice Department refused to defend the independent,
bipartisan agency regarding its update of the state-specific
instructions to the federal voter registration form, siding instead
with the plaintiffs against its own client. The department’s move
was so unusual that the judge refused to grant the plaintiffs’
motion to force the commission to remove the updates to the
instructions, and is requiring a full adversarial briefing.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81028&title=%26%238220%3BGrassley%20Presses%20for%20Answers%20on%20Obama%20Administration%20Impeding%20Independent%20Voting%20Agency%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>
Plaintiffs in Texas Voter ID Case Want En Banc 5th Circuit to Stop
Use of ID Law Pending Final Decision in Case
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81026>
Posted onMarch 18, 2016 10:36 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81026>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Press release
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/news/press-releases/texas-voters-should-not-be-harmed-while-5th-circuit-decides-voter-id-case>:
The Campaign Legal Center (CLC)today called
<http://campaignlegalcenter.us12.list-manage.com/track/click?u=2b39d5bf1004ce8a7128cfb00&id=fc11f057da&e=90b8650198>on
the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate its stay of a lower
court’s ruling so that Texas’s harmful voter ID law will not prevent
voters from casting a ballot in the 2016 presidential election.
“Why should a law – which has already been found by seven federal
judges to violate Texans’ voting rights – keep even one voter from
participating in the 2016 presidential election?”*said Gerry Hebert,
executive director of the Campaign Legal Center*
<http://campaignlegalcenter.us12.list-manage.com/track/click?u=2b39d5bf1004ce8a7128cfb00&id=b4e04239e4&e=90b8650198>.
“All we are asking is that while we wait for a final ruling in this
case, voters are not prevented from participating in our democracy.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81026&title=Plaintiffs%20in%20Texas%20Voter%20ID%20Case%20Want%20En%20Banc%205th%20Circuit%20to%20Stop%20Use%20of%20ID%20Law%20Pending%20Final%20Decision%20in%20Case&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Voter Suppression Is Happening Everywhere. This Institute Is Trying
To Stop It.” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81024>
Posted onMarch 18, 2016 9:44 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81024>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Samantha Lachman
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/voting-rights-institute_us_56eb145ae4b03a640a69fe56?nmqnz3hos4efusor>for
HuffPo.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81024&title=%26%238220%3BVoter%20Suppression%20Is%20Happening%20Everywhere.%20This%20Institute%20Is%20Trying%20To%20Stop%20It.%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Primary Offers a Glimpse of Voter Problems”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81022>
Posted onMarch 18, 2016 9:34 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81022>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
IndyWeek
<http://www.indyweek.com/news/archives/2016/03/16/primary-offers-a-glimpse-of-voter-id-problems>:
On Tuesday, North Carolina saw itshighest primary turnout in history
<https://twitter.com/NCSBE/status/709942298117849088>, but that
didn’t mean all N.C. voters had such an easy time exercising their
right to vote.
Democracy NC, a Durham-based voter rights organization, said that a
voter hotline set up at the UNC School of Law fielded over 1,000
calls between early voting and Election Day, seeking assistance on a
whole range of problems, ranging from last-minute polling place
changes to confusion surrounding the first application of the
state’s new voter ID law. “Based on voter turnout and the number of
calls we get during the average general election,” said
communications director Jen Jones, “It’s safe to say that a high
proportion of voters were impacted by new voting laws.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81022&title=%26%238220%3BPrimary%20Offers%20a%20Glimpse%20of%20Voter%20Problems%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“New election law changes help veterans and nursing home residents”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81020>
Posted onMarch 18, 2016 9:29 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81020>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The
latest<http://wsau.com/news/articles/2016/mar/17/new-election-law-changes-help-veterans-and-nursing-home-residents/>from
WI:
Once the Senate passed the bill with election law changes Tuesday
including the ability for veterans to use their veteran ID cards,
Governor Scott Walker signed it right away Wednesday.
Government Accountability Board spokesman Reed Magney says several
veterans groups worked hard to bring about this change from the
original 2011 voter ID law. He says the changes will simplify voting
for veterans, especially older veterans. “Think of an older veteran
who no longer drives. He’s allowed his driver license to expire many
years ago, but he still has his veteran’s ID card that he uses when
he gets health care at the VA clinic or the hospital. He can use
that now instead of having to, for example, get a state ID card.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81020&title=%26%238220%3BNew%20election%20law%20changes%20help%20veterans%20and%20nursing%20home%20residents%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
EAC’s Newby in More Controversy <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81018>
Posted onMarch 18, 2016 9:27 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81018>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/audit-slams-management-job-us-election-official-37730783>:
A top U.S. election official improperly claimed mileage and travel
expenses, intentionally skirted oversight of government credit card
expenses and wasted taxpayer funds while at his former job as an
elections commissioner inKansas
<http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/kansas.htm>, according to an
audit released Thursday.
Brian Newby was hired in November as executive director of the U.S.
Election Assistance Commission, and the “transitional audit” of the
Johnson County Election Office covers the last five years of his
11-year tenure as the county’s election commissioner.
Newby called the audit “inaccurate, very misleading, very
incomplete” and said he didn’t get to review it before it was released.
The scathing audit of Newby’s fiscal management while at the Kansas
job is the latest controversy to dog him since he took over the helm
of the EAC. Newby infuriated voting rights advocates when he decided
without public notice or review from his agency’s commissioners that
residents ofAlabama <http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/alabama.htm>,
Kansas andGeorgia <http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/georgia.htm>can
no longer register to vote using a federal form without providing
proof of U.S. citizenship. Voting rights groups last month sued him
and the EAC over the move, saying it hurts voter registration drives
and deprives eligible voters of the right to vote.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81018&title=EAC%26%238217%3Bs%20Newby%20in%20More%20Controversy&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,Election Assistance Commission
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=34>
“Barbara Sinclair left a lasting legacy in political science”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81016>
Posted onMarch 18, 2016 9:23 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81016>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Gregory Koger
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/17/BarbaraSinclair/>:
Last week, eminent political scientist Barbara Sinclair passed away.
She was a renowned congressional expert who contributed as both a
researcher and a public intellectual. Over the course of a renowned
career, she explained the inner workings of congressional party
leaders, the evolution of the Senate, and the ability of Congress to
enact major legislation.
Barbara was a first-rate scholar, and a very generous and helpful
colleague. Her work on “Unorthodox Lawmaking” had a profound impact on
the field of Legislation. Condolences to her friends and family.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81016&title=%26%238220%3BBarbara%20Sinclair%20left%20a%20lasting%20legacy%20in%20political%20science%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection law biz <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>
“Bernie Sanders Would Ask Obama To Withdraw Merrick Garland’s
Nomination If Elected” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81014>
Posted onMarch 18, 2016 7:49 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81014>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Cristian Farias for HuffPo
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-merrick-garland_us_56ebe53ee4b084c6721ff46c>:
Sanders said the judge is “clearly very knowledgeable and can serve
ably” on the high court. “But between you and me,” he told Maddow,
“I think there are some more progressive judges out there.”
As he has done a number of times in this presidential cycle, Sanders
said that his litmus test for an ideal Supreme Court justice is
whether the person is committed to overturning
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-citizens-united_us_56a24542e4b0404eb8f13f1b>the
2010 decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which
made it possible for corporations and unions to spend unlimited
amounts in elections.
“I am very worried about the future of American democracy and about
the ability of billionaires to buy elections,” he said.
Yesterday Iexplained<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80981>why Judge
Garland would not pass a /Citizens United/litmus test:
The harder question is what a Justice Garland would do, if faced on
the Supreme Court with the opportunity to overturn /Citizens
United/. On the merits, I have little doubt he would have been in
the dissent in the original /Citizens United/case. But the question
is one of /stare decisis /(respect for precedent) now. Would he be
willing to overturn such a case, just a few years after the
controversial ruling? My guess is that his would be a struggle for
him, less about the merits of the case and more about the proper
role of the Justice (particularly if he becomes the new swing
Justice) on a Court that is ideologically and politically divided.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81014&title=%26%238220%3BBernie%20Sanders%20Would%20Ask%20Obama%20To%20Withdraw%20Merrick%20Garland%E2%80%99s%20Nomination%20If%20Elected%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Project Veritas Vote Fraud Investigator Subpoenaed by NH AG”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81012>
Posted onMarch 18, 2016 7:45 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81012>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Concord Patch reports.
<http://patch.com/new-hampshire/concord-nh/project-veritas-vote-fraud-investigator-subpoenaed-nh-ag>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81012&title=%26%238220%3BProject%20Veritas%20Vote%20Fraud%20Investigator%20Subpoenaed%20by%20NH%20AG%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inchicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>,fraudulent fraud
squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>
“How American voters really can influence Merrick Garland’s
confirmation battle” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81010>
Posted onMarch 18, 2016 7:42 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81010>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Monkey Cage
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/18/how-american-voters-really-can-influence-merrick-garlands-confirmation-battle/>:
The current position of the Senate leadership is that Garland will
not even get a hearing. But some Republican senators have
alreadyindicated
<http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/kelly-ayotte-to-meet-merrick-garland-220868>that
they would meet with Garland, contrary to the previous “no meetings
<http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/senate-gop-supreme-court-219661>”
policy. How likely would Garland’s confirmation be if the Senate
did eventually vote on it?
Many factors will come into play, but one important piece of the
puzzle is public opinion. Asour
<http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7835026&fileId=S0022381610000150>research
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/681261?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents>has
shown, there is a striking connection between home-state public
support for a Supreme Court nominee and how senators vote.
In particular, senators respond to the opinions of their//fellow
partisans back home/./In other words, the votes of Democratic
senators are driven by the opinion of their Democratic constituents,
and the votes of Republican senators are driven by the opinion of
their Republican constituents (controlling for ideology and other
well-studied factors).
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81010&title=%26%238220%3BHow%20American%20voters%20really%20can%20influence%20Merrick%20Garland%E2%80%99s%20confirmation%20battle%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Sanders surprises with controversial superdelegate strategy”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81008>
Posted onMarch 18, 2016 7:40 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81008>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Steve Benen
<http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/sanders-surprises-controversial-superdelegate-strategy>:
Strictly speaking, Democratic primary and caucus voters are
principally responsible for choosing their presidential nominee, but
the power is not/entirely/in their hands. While those voters elect
pledged delegates for the party’s national convention, the
Democratic process also includes superdelegates – party officials
who are able to cast their own votes, separate from primary and
caucus results.
The system is not without critics. Though it’s never happened, the
existing Democratic process leaves open the possibility that actual,
rank-and-file voters – the folks who participate in state-by-state
elections – will rally behind one presidential candidate, only to
have party officials override their decision, handing the nomination
to someone else. For many, such a scenario seems un-democratic (and
un-Democratic).
It therefore came as something of a surprise this week when Bernie
Sanders’ presidential campaign first raised the prospect of doing
exactly that. Sanders aidestold reporters
<http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/bernie-sanders-longshot-victory-superdelegates-220847>that
he may not be able to catch Hillary Clinton through the
primary/caucus delegate process, but the campaign might come close,
at which point Team Bernie might ask superdelegates to give Sanders
the nomination anyway, even if he’s trailing Clinton after voters
have had their say.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81008&title=%26%238220%3BSanders%20surprises%20with%20controversial%20superdelegate%20strategy%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,political
parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,primaries
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
“Greg Abbott claims voter fraud rampant in Texas: Pants on Fire!”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81006>
Posted onMarch 18, 2016 7:36 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81006>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politifact Texas
<http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Greg-Abbott-claims-voter-fraud-rampant-in-Texas-6915882.php>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81006&title=%26%238220%3BGreg%20Abbott%20claims%20voter%20fraud%20rampant%20in%20Texas%3A%20Pants%20on%20Fire%21%26%238221%3B&description=>
--
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
hhttp://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/20160321/a0d43aea/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/20160321/a0d43aea/attachment.png>
View list directory