[EL] ELB News and Commentary 3/25/16
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Fri Mar 25 09:20:48 PDT 2016
“Why Bernie Sanders isn’t dropping out”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81232>
Posted onMarch 25, 2016 9:17 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81232>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Alex
Seitz-Wald<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/why-bernie-sanders-isnt-dropping-out>for
MSNBC:
Bernie Sanders isn’t going anywhere, despite Hillary Clinton’s
prohibitive delegate lead, and Tuesday night offers a hint why. But
the underdog’s path forward carries risks as well as challenges.
Even though Sanderscame up short in Arizona
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sanders-wins-overshadowed-arizona-loss>,
where his campaign invested most heavily, the Vermont senator ended
up netting 17 delegates over clinton Tuesday, thanks to lopsided
wins in the Idaho and Utah caucuses.
He ended up taking away a tidy 57 percent of the pledged delegates
up for grabs that day. And as it happens, 58% is the percentage of
outstanding pledged delegates Sanders needs to win from now on in
order to finish the primary calendar with more pledged delegates
than Hillary Clinton, according to an NBC News analysis.
On Saturday, Sanders is hoping to win an even larger portion of the
delegates in Washington state, which holds the largest caucus of the
entire year, with 101 delegates at stake. Alaska and Hawaii will
also hold caucuses, which Sanders also hopes to win Saturday.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81232&title=%26%238220%3BWhy%20Bernie%20Sanders%20isn%E2%80%99t%20dropping%20out%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
Group of Plaintiffs in Texas Voter ID Case Seeks Emergency Relief at
#SCOTUS <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81230>
Posted onMarch 25, 2016 9:08 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81230>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Campaign Legal Center:
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/news/press-releases/us-supreme-court-must-take-action-so-texans-are-not-harmed-voter-id-law>
The Campaign Legal Center (CLC)today called
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/sites/default/files/Veasey%20v.%20Abbot%20Application%20to%20Vacate%20Stay%203.25.16.pdf>on
the U.S. Supreme Court to take immediate action in the Texas voter
ID case so that voters will not be harmed by the law in the 2016
presidential election.
The application filed with the U.S. Supreme Court follows the 5th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refusal to offer relief in time for
the upcoming election. Last week, the appellate courteffectively
denied the Campaign Legal Center’s emergency motion to vacate its
stay
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/news/press-releases/texas-voters-should-not-be-harmed-while-5th-circuit-decides-voter-id-case>of
a lower court’s ruling that struck down the law. Under the 5th
Circuit’s order, the voter ID law will remain in effect as the case
proceeds once again in the 5th Circuit, where it has languished
since October 2014.
“Seven federal judges have ruled that Texas’ voter ID law
discriminates against minority voters, but the law is still in
effect,”*said Gerry Hebert, executive director of the Campaign Legal
Center* <http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/team/j-gerald-hebert>.
“The 5th Circuit has set up a schedule that likely forecloses our
ability to obtain relief in time for the presidential election. We
are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to ensure that that no one is
prevented from casting a ballot because this discriminatory law is
in place.”
The D.C. District Court, a Texas district court, and a three-judge
panel of the 5th Circuit have all found that the law discriminates
against minority voters. The 5th Circuit’s stay of the district
court’s decision in 2014 is the only reason the law is in effect.
The application is filed with Justice Thomas and likely will be referred
to the entire Court. If the Court (as seems quite possible) splits 4-4
on this application, the likely result would be a denial of this
emergency motion without comment.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81230&title=Group%20of%20Plaintiffs%20in%20Texas%20Voter%20ID%20Case%20Seeks%20Emergency%20Relief%20at%20%23SCOTUS&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
“This Is What Political Revolution Really Looks Like”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81227>
Posted onMarch 25, 2016 9:00 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81227>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Contributions by Wendy Weiser, Rob Richie and Sandy Levinson inThe
Nation
<http://www.thenation.com/article/this-is-what-political-revolution-really-looks-like/>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81227&title=%26%238220%3BThis%20Is%20What%20Political%20Revolution%20Really%20Looks%20Like%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Clinton criticizes lax campaign finance laws between two L.A.-area
fundraisers” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81225>
Posted onMarch 25, 2016 8:58 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81225>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Seema
Mehta<http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-kimmel-20160324-story.html>for
the LAT:
between attending two Los Angeles-area fundraisers, Democratic
front-runnerHillary Clinton
<http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics-government/government/hillary-clinton-PEPLT007433-topic.html>railed
against the laxness of campaign finance laws on “Jimmy Kimmel
<http://www.latimes.com/topic/entertainment/television/jimmy-kimmel-PECLB004392-topic.html>Live!”
“We have to raise money. I raise a lot of money at events and I
raise a lot of money online, but there should not be these huge
loopholes for corporations and billionaires to just put as much
money as they want to and not even have to tell you who it comes
from or really disclose very much at all,” Clinton told Kimmel,
arguing that Citizens United, the Supreme Court decision that
weakened campaign finance laws, must be overturned. “It is wrong.”
Clinton’s position was not new, but her statement occurred the same
day that she headlined fundraisers in Santa Monica and Hollywood,
and the same day Politico reported that a couple could buy seats at
the head table at a Clinton Bay Area fundraiser next month alongside
George and Amal Clooney by contributing or raising $353,400 for
various Democratic groups.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81225&title=%26%238220%3BClinton%20criticizes%20lax%20campaign%20finance%20laws%20between%20two%20L.A.-area%20fundraisers%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Protean Statutory Interpretation in the Courts of Appeals”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81223>
Posted onMarch 25, 2016 8:56 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81223>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Jim Brudney and Larry Baum have postedthis draft
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2745987>on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
This article is the first in-depth empirical and doctrinal analysis
of differences in statutory interpretation between the courts of
appeals and the Supreme Court. It is also among the first to
anticipate how the Supreme Court’s interpretive approach may shift
with the passing of Justice Scalia.
We begin by identifying several factors that may contribute to
interpretive divergence between the two judicial levels, based on
their different institutional structures and operational realities.
We then examine how three circuit courts have used dictionaries and
legislative history in three subject matter areas over the past
decade, and compare these findings in detail to the interpretive
approach taken by the Roberts Court in the same three fields.
We determine that the appeals courts have followed a protean
approach, adapting their usage patterns in ways that differ
substantially from patterns in the Supreme Court. Appeals court
judges use dictionaries far less relative to legislative history
than do the justices; moreover, we found no semblance of the
distinctive dictionary culture that is prevalent on the Roberts
Court. For legislative history, circuit courts use it regularly to
resolve ambiguities, confirm apparent meaning, or simply explicate
legislative intent, all without characterizing its legitimacy or
systemic value.
For both dictionaries and legislative history, the courts of
appeals’ eclectic approach differs markedly from the Supreme Court’s
more self-consciously articulated methodological path. We suggest
how certain sources of interpretive divergence contribute to these
differences, notably the justices’ interaction with all their
colleagues in every case and their experience as objects of
continuing media and congressional attention, some of which reflects
attention that carries over from the judicial confirmation process.
We conclude that the eclecticism of the appeals courts is likely to
limit judicial discretion more effectively than the Supreme Court’s
current approach which favors clear interpretive rules or priorities
that are applied on a presumptively consistent basis.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81223&title=%26%238220%3BProtean%20Statutory%20Interpretation%20in%20the%20Courts%20of%20Appeals%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted instatutory interpretation <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=21>
“Douglas and Mazo’s Election Law Stories”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81219>
Posted onMarch 25, 2016 8:53 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81219>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ready for Preorder
<http://www.westacademic.com/Professors/ProductDetails.aspx?NSIID=76976>this
must-addition to your election law bookshelf:
One of the most dynamic fields in the legal academy now has its own
Stories book. This title offers a rich and detailed account of the
most significant cases in election law, including the landmark
decisions of/Reynolds v. Sims/,/Bush v. Gore/,/Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission/, and/Shelby County v. Holder/. The book
relies on a unique encapsulated approach to storytelling, as each of
its authors surveys an important doctrinal area in the field through
the telling of his or her story. The volume’s thirteen cases concern
the right to vote, redistricting and gerrymandering, campaign
finance, and election administration. The book is suited for courses
in the law of democracy at both the graduate and undergraduate levels.
Table of Contents
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/stories.pdf>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81219&title=%26%238220%3BDouglas%20and%20Mazo%26%238217%3Bs%20Election%20Law%20Stories%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inpedagogy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=23>
Reformers File to Save McCain-Feingold Soft Money Ban
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81217>
Posted onMarch 25, 2016 7:55 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81217>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Release
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/news/press-releases/brief-filed-preserve-our-democracy-against-latest-bopp-legal-challenge>:
Thee Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21 and Public Citizen
todayfiled a friend-of-the-court brief
<http://campaignlegalcenter.us12.list-manage.com/track/click?u=2b39d5bf1004ce8a7128cfb00&id=2c1618355a&e=cc5d3deea8>in
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in/Republican Party
of Louisiana v. FEC/
<http://campaignlegalcenter.us12.list-manage.com/track/click?u=2b39d5bf1004ce8a7128cfb00&id=64d0394b63&e=cc5d3deea8>,
a case attempting to further undermine campaign contribution limits.
Under one of the key provisions enacted as part of the 2002
McCain-Feingold law and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003,
state and local parties have limits on how much they can raise for
federal election activities. With the help of/Citizens United/lawyer
Jim Bopp, the plaintiffs – the Republican Party of Louisiana and two
of its local committees – argue that the First Amendment forbids
Congress from limiting the sources and amounts of these contributions.
Update: Here is aBrennan Center brief
<http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=93606&qid=8492568>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81217&title=Reformers%20File%20to%20Save%20McCain-Feingold%20Soft%20Money%20Ban&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“WI College & University Students Must Check NOW to Ensure They Are
Able to Vote on April 5th and Beyond”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81215>
Posted onMarch 25, 2016 7:53 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81215>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Common Cause
<http://www.commoncausewisconsin.org/2016/03/wi-college-university-students-must-act.html> with
some key info. It won’t be easy to vote as a student in WI depending on
where you go to school and what ID you already have.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81215&title=%26%238220%3BWI%20College%20%26%23038%3B%20University%20Students%20Must%20Check%20NOW%20to%20Ensure%20They%20Are%20Able%20to%20Vote%20on%20April%205th%20and%20Beyond%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Inside Trump’s plot to thwart a contested convention and seize
control of the GOP” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81213>
Posted onMarch 25, 2016 7:49 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81213>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Greg
Sargent<https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/25/inside-trumps-dastardly-plot-to-thwart-contested-convention-and-seize-control-of-gop/>for
WaPo.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81213&title=%26%238220%3BInside%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20plot%20to%20thwart%20a%20contested%20convention%20and%20seize%20control%20of%20the%20GOP%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,political
parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,primaries
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
“Citizens United is Too Often Distorted in the Press”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81211>
Posted onMarch 25, 2016 7:48 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81211>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Paul Jossey
<http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2016/03/24/citizens-united-is-too-often-distorted-in-the-press/>writes
for CCP.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81211&title=%26%238220%3BCitizens%20United%20is%20Too%20Often%20Distorted%20in%20the%20Press%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Why A Third Party Alternative Won’t Save the GOP From Trump”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81209>
Posted onMarch 25, 2016 7:46 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81209>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Tierney
Sneed<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/trump-third-party-calculus>writes
for TPM.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81209&title=%26%238220%3BWhy%20A%20Third%20Party%20Alternative%20Won%26%238217%3Bt%20Save%20the%20GOP%20From%20Trump%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>
“Angry Arizona Voters Demand: Why Such Long Lines at Polling Sites?”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81206>
Posted onMarch 24, 2016 7:46 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81206>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Fernanda
Santos<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/us/angry-arizona-voters-demand-why-such-long-lines-at-polling-sites.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news>reports
for the NYT:
All day, lines meandered along church courtyards, zigzagged along
school parking lots and snaked around shadeless blocks as tens of
thousands of voters waited to cast their ballots, including many
independents who did not know that only those registered to a party
could participate in the state’s closed presidential primaries.
But beyond the electoral breakdown here, many observers saw Arizona
as a flashing neon sign pointing toward potential problems
nationally at a time that 16 states will have new voting
restrictions in place for the first time in a presidential election.
The presidential election will be the first since the Supreme Court
dismantled a crucial section of theVoting Rights Act
<http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/v/voting_rights_act_1965/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>in
2013, freeing nine states, including Arizona and parts of seven
others, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
Wisconsin, which holds its primary elections April 5, is one of nine
states with strict photo ID requirements. Thirty-three states have
some form of voter ID. Kansas has enacted proof-of-citizenship
requirements for all voter registration, a move that has
disproportionately affectedyoung voters
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/us/politics/kansas-voter-id-law-sets-off-a-new-battle-over-registration.html>and
those attempting to register for the first time. North Carolina
allows a registered voter to challenge the identity and eligibility
of any voter casting a ballot in the same county.
My quote to the Times, echoingmy earlier post
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81186>that the cause of the long lines
yesterday in Maricopa County appears to be more incompetence than
malfeasance (and only possible because John Roberts & Co. killed Section
5 of the Voting Rights Act), led to this piece of fan mail:
Subject: You are full of shit about AZ – it’s intentional
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:31:25 -0500
From: xxxx
To: rhasen at law.uci.edu
Why did you lie to the Times? If you don't think it's intentional you have the intuitiveness of a 3 month old.
Sent from my iPhone
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81206&title=%26%238220%3BAngry%20Arizona%20Voters%20Demand%3A%20Why%20Such%20Long%20Lines%20at%20Polling%20Sites%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Why the campaign to pressure Republicans to confirm Merrick Garland
is failing” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81204>
Posted onMarch 24, 2016 4:36 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81204>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/03/24/daily-202-why-the-campaign-to-pressure-republicans-to-confirm-merrick-garland-is-failing/56f307c4981b92a22dab8f38/>on
the nub of the problem of targeting red Senators in blue/purple states:
*Despite Democratic organizing efforts, right-leaning activists care
more about the Supreme Court vacancy right now than liberals do. In
the current climate, most conservatives – even in blue states – have
no appetite for compromise…..*
Richard Diercksmeier, a retired electrical engineer who lives in the
vote-rich Milwaukee suburbs, said he heard a news report that
Johnson “might be taking a moderate position or a flexible position”
on confirming Garland. So he drove to a manufacturing facility here,
where the senator was accepting the endorsement of the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce, to ask him for clarification.
Johnson was adamant: he will not vote for Garland—saying that
elevating the judge would threaten “your Second Amendment right to
keep and bear arms,” “the right to free speech” and “freedom of
religion.”
*“We’ll withhold our consent,” the first-term senator said. “A lot
of people say, ‘Do your job.’ You know what? I’m doing my job!**… We
need somebody that can replace Scalia*… We do not want it to flip
from a 5-4 conservative majority to a 5-4 super-legislator, activist
judge majority. That would be very bad for America, very bad for our
freedoms.”
Right. Republican obstructionism is not about giving “the people” a
voice. It is about blocking the nominee on ideological grounds. This is
a pure political fight that will ultimately get resolved in states like
Wisconsin. And right now Democrats lack intensity to push for Garland.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81204&title=%26%238220%3BWhy%20the%20campaign%20to%20pressure%20Republicans%20to%20confirm%20Merrick%20Garland%20is%20failing%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inpolitical polarization
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Election technology and the Legislature; NCSL election technology
toolkit” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81202>
Posted onMarch 24, 2016 2:53 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81202>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Katy Owens Hubler leads off this week’sElectionline Weekly.
<http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81202&title=%26%238220%3BElection%20technology%20and%20the%20Legislature%3B%20NCSL%20election%20technology%20toolkit%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,voting technology
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40>
“Judicial Perceptions of Electoral Psychology and the Deep Patterns
of Campaign Finance Law” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81200>
Posted onMarch 24, 2016 2:31 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81200>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Jacob Eisler has
posted<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2747403>this
draft on SSRN (forthcoming, /Connecticut Law Review/). Here is the
abstract:
Why has American campaign finance law long suffered from doctrinal
confusion and sparked bitter ideological conflict? This article
demonstrates that these attributes are rooted in a judicial dispute
over the cognitive and social characteristics of central actors in
elections.
The article unpacks the foundations of campaign finance law through
a multi-tiered analysis of case texts. It first explicates the
doctrinal deficiencies that riddle the Supreme Court’s campaign
finance jurisprudence. These flaws reflect the Court’s clumsy
engagement with democratic theory, which has been an unrecognized
driver of campaign finance law and the wellspring of the partisan
dispute. Conservatives assert that the pillar of democracy is free
participation in the marketplace of information, and subsequently
reject restriction of campaign financing even when advanced in the
name of anti-corruption. Conversely, liberals perceive democracy as
vulnerable to systemic corruption from plutocratic influences and
thus endorse regulatory oversight of campaign spending.
The latter half of the article excavates the origins of this
conflict: the factions adopt divergent positions on the cognitive
and social attributes of political actors (voters, candidates,
donors, and public officials). As these positions inform the
factions’ theories of democracy, the campaign finance quagmire can
be traced to political and psychological assumptions present in the
cases. Progress in campaign finance law demands revision of the
relationship between these assumptions and contemporary electoral
realities.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81200&title=%26%238220%3BJudicial%20Perceptions%20of%20Electoral%20Psychology%20and%20the%20Deep%20Patterns%20of%20Campaign%20Finance%20Law%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Money in politics: Finance, regulation and disclosure in CA’s
ballot initiative process” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81198>
Posted onMarch 24, 2016 2:26 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81198>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I’ll be participating inthis live event f
<http://www.scpr.org/events/2016/04/19/1922/money-in-politics/>or KPCC
April 19 at 7 pm, to be broadcast as part of Larry Mantle’s AirTalk. Use
the link if you want to RSVP for the live event.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81198&title=%26%238220%3BMoney%20in%20politics%3A%20Finance%2C%20regulation%20and%20disclosure%20in%20CA%26%238217%3Bs%20ballot%20initiative%20process%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted indirect democracy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>
“The Future of Technology in Elections”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81196>
Posted onMarch 24, 2016 2:23 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81196>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Conny McCormack
<http://publications.atlanticcouncil.org/election-tech/index.php>has
written this report for the Atlantic Council.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81196&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20Future%20of%20Technology%20in%20Elections%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Blame government for voting crisis: Column”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81194>
Posted onMarch 24, 2016 9:58 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81194>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Michael McDonald for USA Today
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/03/24/voting-rights-crisis-blame-government-all-levels-supreme-court-column/82208222/>:
t was bad enough that some Arizona voters had to stand in line for
up to five hours after the polls closed in their state’s primary
election. Then it got worse: When asked who was to blame, Maricopa
County Recorder Helen Purcell replied, “The voters
<http://ktar.com/story/978327/phoenix-area-election-official-voters-chose-to-stand-in-the-long-lines/>for
getting in line, maybe us for not having enough polling places…”
An election official blaming voters is appalling. These people were
heroes of democracy, performing their civic duty despite losing
their evening to bureaucratic incompetence.
The real blame lies with sweeping failures across local, state, and
federal governments.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81194&title=%26%238220%3BBlame%20government%20for%20voting%20crisis%3A%20Column%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“Wisconsin’s Voter ID Law Requires an Education Campaign, Which the
State Hasn’t Funded” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81189>
Posted onMarch 24, 2016 9:15 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81189>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Yup
<https://www.propublica.org/article/wisconsin-voter-id-law-education-campaign-state-hasnt-funded>,
all those promises about how the state would reach to those voters
lacking the right form of ID….
From the law establishing voter ID in Wisconsin
2011 Wis Act 23
*Section 144**.**Nonstatutory provisions.*
(1) Public informational campaign.*In conjunction with the first
regularly scheduled primary and election at which the voter
identification requirements of this act initially apply, the
government accountability board shall conduct a public informational
campaign for the purpose of informing prospective voters of the
voter identification requirements of this ac*t.
.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81189&title=%26%238220%3BWisconsin%E2%80%99s%20Voter%20ID%20Law%20Requires%20an%20Education%20Campaign%2C%20Which%20the%20State%20Hasn%E2%80%99t%20Funded%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
--
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/20160325/71dd2375/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/20160325/71dd2375/attachment.png>
View list directory