[EL] ELB News and Commentary 3/24/16

Thu Mar 24 10:42:21 PDT 2016

I have known Helen Purcell most of my life and have served as her attorney in the past.  She is an honorable and highly competent public service with a very good track record.  Understand that in Arizona's closed presidential primary Independents can't vote.  They can vote in regular primary elections.  In making the voter turnout calculation, I suspect that the county did not factor in how many Independents would show up demanding to vote in this unusual election.  It takes time to find out that someone is not registered in a recognized political party, explain that this election is different, and then have those voters who remain undeterred cast a provisional ballot.  There was publicity about the fact that Independents could not vote in this election, but it seems a lot of voters did not pay attention -- to be expected to some degree.  This was probably the basis for Helen's comment about voter error.  

I also suspect that there was significant financial pressure placed on the county to spend as little as possible on this election given that it is a closed primary.  Many citizens feel that public dollars should not be spent on closed primaries to select convention delegates for the parties.  In my experience, the financial blame does not lie with Mrs. Purcell.

I am thankful I took the opportunity to vote early by mail.  I was sorry to see this particular election go so badly due to a combination of circumstances.  Knowing Helen Purcell and her staff, I am certain they are upset about the inconvenience to voters on Tuesday.  I can think of a few mistakes they have made over the past few decades.  They are humans and not perfect.  But I have never seen them make a mistake of this magnitude and I am sure they had plenty of help on this one.  

Lisa T. Hauser
Mobile: 602-616-9368
Lhauser2 at cox.net

On Mar 24, 2016, at 5:29 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

“Sanders, Clinton want campaign finance overhaul, but face huge obstacles” [Corrected]
Posted on March 24, 2016 7:55 am by Rick Hasen
Carrie Levine for CPI/Yahoo! News:

Campaign finance reform has become a major issue in the presidential race — at least on the Democratic side — but even if Hillary Clinton orBernie Sanders were able to win the White House, a wholesale overhaul of the current system would take a lot more than a president alone.

<share_save_171_16.png>
Posted in Uncategorized

> On 3/24/2016 8:39 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
> My Thoughts on AZ Long Lines: Incompetence, Not Vote Suppression, and                 Blame #SCOTUS First
> Posted on March 24, 2016 8:38 am by Rick Hasen
> The other day, while voting was taking place in AZ, I had a post entitled Would Long Lines at AZ Polling Places Have Happened if #SCOTUS Hadn’t Killed Voting Rights Act Provision?  My point was that Maricopa County’s decision to cut the number of polling places by 2/3 would not have been possible before the Supreme Court decided the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder case because to do so Arizona, which had been covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, would have had to demonstrate (and likely would not have been able to demonstrate) that doing so would not have made protected minority voters in Maricopa County (lots of Latino and Native American voters) worse off.  So this review would have made a big difference.
> 
> Which brings me to my point today. Section 5 worked not only to stop intentional minority vote suppression but also bureaucratic incompetence. The election administrator of Maricopa County,             Helen Purcell, made a decision to cut polling places apparently to save money (there is always pressure from state and local governments to skimp on resources for election administration), and partially out a mistaken vast underestimation of election day turnout.
> 
> Now people want off with Purcell’s head, claiming intentional voter suppression. People are angry, and justifiably so. Bernie Sanders said that waiting 5 hours to vote is a disgrace. (He’s right.)  Here’s Clinton’s campaign lawyer Marc Elias saying that both Sanders and Clinton voters were disadvantaged (all voters were); here’s the mayor of Phoenix (rightfully) calling for a DOJ investigation.  Purcell did not help herself by giving an interview where the first person she blamed for long lines was “the voters:”
> 
> “Just to start, obviously you’ve heard of all the frustration. Who is to blame for this, these long lines?” Purcell was asked.
> 
> “Well, the voters for getting in line, maybe us for not having enough voting places,” she replied.
> 
> Purcell has since apologized.
> 
> But there’s no good evidence that Purcell was motivated to suppress the vote. I have heard from a number of people that Purcell (a Republican) is a straight shooter and works with a Democratic head of elections. This seems like a perfect example of Hanlon’s razor: don’t explain with malfeasance that which can be explained by incompetence.
> 
> Purcell screwed up. Maybe she doesn’t deserve to be in office after this screw up (thank goodness this was not for the general election and the race was not close). But I don’t see evidence she someone like a Kris Kobach trying to intentionally make it harder for likely Democrats to vote.
> 
> But thank John Roberts and Co. that this did not get a closer look from federal officials before the election took place.
> 
> <mime-attachment.png>
> Posted in election administration, Supreme Court, The Voting Wars
> Super Nerdy #SCOTUS Question for Appellate Gurus
> Posted on March 24, 2016 8:19 am by Rick Hasen
> When the Supreme Court divides 4-4 in a case coming up on a cert. petition, we know that means the lower court ruling stands and that there is no precedential value to that decision( i.e., it does not mean the lower court decision was right). That means, for example, that in the Zubik contraception case, if the Court divides 4-4 that does not mean the lower court decision was right, and he have the prospect of a continued circuit split, with the law in the 8th Circuit being different than the law in all the other circuits which have come out the other way.
> 
> But what about if the Court splits 4-4 in a case that has come up on a direct appeal, like Evenwel, or Person, both cases argued this term from a direct appeal. We know ordinarily that a Supreme Court opinion not to hear a case and to affirm or dismiss does mean the lower court got the result right, even if not for the right reasons.  Is it the same implication if the Court divides 4-4?  Are those decisions binding across the country?
> 
> <mime-attachment.png>
> Posted in Supreme Court
> “Why hasn’t Internet voting caught on? This expert has a nefarious theory.”
> Posted on March 24, 2016 8:00 am by Rick Hasen
> I don’t buy this at all.
> 
> <mime-attachment.png>
> Posted in election administration, internet voting
> “Shadow campaign to deny Trump his delegates begins”
> Posted on March 24, 2016 7:56 am by Rick Hasen
> Politico:
> 
> Madrid’s visit to South Dakota on Saturday marked one of the earliest signs               that the shadow campaign for the Republican nomination has begun. Kasich and Cruz are scrambling to secure commitments from bound delegates to break off on a second-ballot and vote against Trump. In many cases, that means asking delegates to buck Republican primary voters in the name of settling on a nominee.
> 
> The fight will heat up in April, when a slew of states — including Arizona, Colorado and North Dakota — begin selecting their own slate of delegates, using methods ranging from statewide and Congressional district conventions to meetings of state party leaders to county-level votes or caucuses.
> 
>  
> 
> <mime-attachment.png>
> Posted in campaigns, political parties, primaries
> “Sanders, Clinton want campaign finance overhaul, but face huge obstacles”
> Posted on March 24, 2016 7:55 am by Rick Hasen
> Carrie Levine for CPI/Yahoo! News:
> 
>  
> 
> <mime-attachment.png>
> Posted in Uncategorized
> “Rep. Brown Investigated by DOJ for Alleged Fraud”
> Posted on March 24, 2016 7:52 am by Rick Hasen
> Bloomberg BNA:
> 
> Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.) is being investigated by the Justice Department regarding allegations that she might have engaged in a conspiracy to solicit fraudulent charitable contributions.
> The DOJ investigation was disclosed in a March 23 statement from the House Ethics Committee, which said it was delaying its own probe of Brown to defer to the department. Ethics Committee investigations usually are delayed while a criminal probe is under way.
> Details of allegations against Brown were not revealed in the Ethics Committee statement. The latest action appeared to be related to a recent guilty plea by Carla Wiley, the head of the One Door for Education Foundation Inc., an organization linked to Brown.
> <mime-attachment.png>
> Posted in campaign finance, campaigns, chicanery
> “Trump Moves into Majority Position in GOP Nomination Contest”
> Posted on March 24, 2016 7:51 am by Rick Hasen
> FairVote:
> 
> Over the past six months, FairVote has analyzed a number of Republican presidential nomination polls and collaborated with the College of William and Mary on our own national poll, with an eye toward understanding who would likely win with a ranked choice voting rule. Notably, that winner rarely was Donald Trump, including in our poll and in most contests won by Trump– and indeed, Trump has still not won  a primary or caucus with a majority of the vote. However, as the field has been reduced to Trump, Ted Cruz and John Kasich, Trump’s frontrunner status is seemingly being accepted by more grassroots Republican voters, and he is poised to be a majority nominee.
> 
> <mime-attachment.png>
> Posted in alternative voting systems, campaigns
> Without Comment, #SCOTUS Denies Montana Republicans Relief from Open Primary
> Posted on March 24, 2016 7:50 am by Rick Hasen
> The Court’s order (without any explanation or noted dissent) is here.
> 
> Given how close this came to the election, the denial of relief for now is not a big surprise. But this is a case to keep an eye on concerning the merits.
> 
> <mime-attachment.png>
> Posted in political parties, political polarization
> “The GOP — and its big funders — scramble to insulate Congress from Trump”
> Posted on March 24, 2016 7:47 am by Rick Hasen
> WaPo:
> 
> Establishment Republicans and their big-money allies are rushing to build a multistate defense system to protect Senate and House candidates, fearing that the party could lose its hold on Congress if Donald Trump is at the top of the ticket in November.
> 
> The anxiety about Trump’s potential spillover effect on down-ballot races was underscored Wednesday when House Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin lamented the “disheartened” state of the campaign and criticized the “identity politics” on display in the increasingly toxic race for the GOP presidential nomination.
> 
> The efforts are being driven by major players such as the Koch brothers’ political network, which has already begun laying groundwork in Colorado, Ohio and Pennsylvania, along with the Crossroads organizations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
> 
>  The behemoth Koch operation — which aims to spend almost $900 million before the November elections — is now considering abandoning Trump as a nominee and focusing its resources on behalf of GOP congressional candidates.
> See also Bloomberg’s With GOP in Disarray, Super PACs Target Congress.
> <mime-attachment.png>
> Posted in campaign finance, campaigns
> “New York’s Coming ConCon Battle”
> Posted on March 24, 2016 7:46 am by Rick Hasen
> J.H. Snider for the Gotham Gazette.
> 
> <mime-attachment.png>
> Posted in Uncategorized
> Drip, Drip, Drip Dept
> Posted on March 24, 2016 7:33 am by Rick Hasen
> Philly.com:
> 
> In a shift, Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey said Wednesday he will meet with Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, but still insisted that the high court vacancy should not be filled until after November’s election.
> 
> “President Obama’s team has asked if I would meet with Judge Merrick Garland, and I have agreed to do so out of courtesy and respect for both the president and the judge,” Toomey, a Republican, said in a statement Wednesday afternoon. “The vacancy left by Justice (Antonin) Scalia’s passing will not be filled until after the American people weigh in and select a new president, and I believe that is the best approach for deciding whether to alter the balance of the Supreme Court. I plan on making that clear to Judge Garland when I meet with him.”
> Toomey had previously suggested that a meeting would not be helpful because his concern is with the court’s make up, not the individual nominated.
> 
> His announcement comes amid a week of protests and rallies that Democrats and liberal groups have staged or planned outside his Pennsylvania offices and public events, with demonstrators urging Toomey to “do your job.”
> 
> This is exactly the strategy I’ve recommended to maximize the chances of a Garland hearing and possible vote.
> 
> <mime-attachment.png>
> Posted in Supreme Court
> “NEW POLL: Nearly Half of Voters See SCOTUS Vacancy As Among Most Important 2016 Issues”
> Posted on March 24, 2016 7:30 am by Rick Hasen
> Fix the Court release.
> 
> <mime-attachment.png>
> Posted in Supreme Court
> “Straight Ticket Voting”
> Posted on March 24, 2016 7:29 am by Rick Hasen
> News from Indiana.  Would this hurt down-ticket Republcians in Indiana if Trump is on top of ticket?
> 
> <mime-attachment.png>
> Posted in election administration, political parties
> What are Donald Trump’s Views on Campaign Finance Regulation?
> Posted on March 23, 2016 3:01 pm by Richard Pildes
> Has Donald Trump expressed any position, or been asked his position, on how elections should be financed?
> 
> We know he thinks large contributions are corrupting (“I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what, when I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me. That’s a broken system.”).  We know he considers SuperPacs a “scam.”  And a significant part of his appeal to supporters in the primaries is that he is self-funding his campaign.  As others have pointed out, on money in politics, he sounds not all that different from Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton.
> 
> So what is his position on how to fix the system he considers broken?  Would he favor public financing?  Would he favor caps on how much outside groups or individuals could spend, which would require overturning Buckley?  Or caps on how much campaigns could spend too?  Or other approaches?
> 
> I ask in all seriousness.  A while back, I noted that historically, the demands to regulate the role of money in American democracy had often united populist forces on both the right and left of the political spectrum.  The Jacksonian tradition, to which Trump can perhaps be considered an heir, was centrally about reducing the perceived influence of big money on American democracy.  On the Supreme Court, Justices from the Western United States who usually were considered somewhat conservative (White and O’Connor) or conservative (Rehnquist) had voted to uphold campaign finance regulations.  In more recent decades, the issue became far more polarized in partisan terms, at least among elected officials.
> 
> Trump’s indictment of the current system has struck a bell with his supporters.  Knowing what he would propose to fix the system would be of considerable interest.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> <mime-attachment.png>
> Posted in Uncategorized
> “Money Can’t Buy Love — or in Some Cases, Even Elections”
> Posted on March 23, 2016 7:01 am by Rick Hasen
> Roll Call reports.
> 
> See my earlier Money Can’t Buy Jeb Bush the White House, But It Still Skews Politics, Washington Post, January 14, 2016.
> 
>  
> 
> <mime-attachment.png>
> Posted in campaign finance, campaigns
> “Voting Rights Institute Receives Prestigious MacArthur Grant”
> Posted on March 23, 2016 7:00 am by Rick Hasen
> Release.
> 
> <mime-attachment.png>
> Posted in election law biz
> “Wittman v. Personhuballah – A Standing-Only Recap”
> Posted on March 23, 2016 6:59 am by Rick Hasen
> Smart thoughts from Asher Steinberg.
> 
> <mime-attachment.png>
> Posted in redistricting, Supreme Court
> “Trump’s top lawyer helped open political spending floodgates”
> Posted on March 23, 2016 6:43 am by Rick Hasen
> Smart Zach Roth for MSNBC:
> 
> Donald Trump has made his opposition to the flood of big money in politics a centerpiece of his front-running campaign, frequently lamenting the role of super PACs and the outsized sway of wealthy donors like the Koch brothers. But Trump’s top campaign lawyer, veteran Republican election attorney Donald McGahn, was a crucial player in creating the out-of-control campaign finance system that his boss now denounces.
> 
> McGahn helped broker Monday’s meeting between Trump and Republican congressional leaders, which took place at the Washington offices of the law and lobbying firm Jones Day, where McGahn is a partner. To date, the Trump campaign has paid Jones Day more than $500,000, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings.
> 
> McGahn’s key role on Team Trump undercuts the brash businessman’s claim that he’ll reduce the political influence of billionaires and special interests. And it suggests that Trump’s campaign may intend to tap into other sources of big money, using McGahn’s expertise to push the boundaries of the law.
> 
> As a member of the FEC from 2008 to 2013, campaign finance reformers say, McGahn led the successful conservative effort to neuter the agency, with the result that today it is unable to respond to even seemingly egregious violations of campaign finance law. Soon after McGahn joined the FEC as its chair, its three Republican-appointed commissioners have consistently voted as a bloc against enforcement, stymieing the agency from taking action — a situation that has continued since he left.
> 
> <mime-attachment.png>
> Posted in campaign finance, campaigns
> 
> -- 
> 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

-- 
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
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160324/eda82b8d/attachment.html>