[EL] Seattle Vouchers

Thu Jun 29 14:20:29 PDT 2017

I don't think the funding mechanism will play any role in how the courts view the first amendment issue here.

--
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
rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org<http://electionlawblog.org/>

From: David Keating [mailto:dkeating at campaignfreedom.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 10:51 AM
To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>; Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Seattle Vouchers

If you read the complaint and the law itself, PLF is likely making a much more nuanced argument.  It is not necessarily true that "If PLF were successful here, it would mean there could never be public funding for campaigns."

The funding mechanism for this voucher program is unusual -- a special property tax was levied and it can ONLY be used to fund these vouchers. In fact, that's what happened.

It won't stop the program necessarily, even if they win.  There is another provision on the measure allowing it to instead be funded from general city funds.  (Buckley gave the green light to public funding from general revenues.)  I don't read the complaint as challenging use of general funds.

The measure could also be easily amended to allow a refund of the special property tax levy for those taxpayers without a candidate to support, as is the case here -- the plaintiffs do support a candidate who is not using the vouchers.

See Sect. 2: https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/EthicsElections/DemocracyVoucher/I-122%20Text-%20Master.pdf

There are some novel and important First Amendment questions raised by this case and this poorly drafted measure.

David
_________________________________________________
David Keating | President | Center for Competitive Politics
124 S. West Street, Suite 201 | Alexandria, VA 22314
703-894-6799 (direct) | 703-894-6800 | 703-894-6811 Fax
www.campaignfreedom.org<http://www.campaignfreedom.org/>

________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> on behalf of Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 11:58 AM
To: Election Law Listserv
Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 6/2917

Pence-Kobach Commission Wants State Voter Data; Can It Protect Voter Privacy? Will State Election Officials Cooperate? Will House Kill EAC?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93434>

Posted on June 29, 2017 8:55 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93434> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The sham Pence commission wants data <https://twitter.com/srl/status/880160937159905282> from state voter rolls<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93412>.

But it is not clear how this will go.

David Becker<https://twitter.com/beckerdavidj/status/880255855958126597> on the privacy issue and about concerns of securing the data..

It is also not clear whether Democratic election officials will want to cooperate with a sham voter fraud commission which seems designed to provide a pretext to amend the National Voter Registration Act to make it harder to register to vote (including by allowing states to require documentary proof of citizenship<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93347> when registering in federal elections).

And what of Republican election officials who have long preached freedom from federal intrusion?

Meanwhile, the House seems poised once again to try to kil<https://twitter.com/AdamAmbrogi/status/880402897376292865>l the United States Election Assistance Commission, a REAL federal agency doing important work. The Commission has had its share of problems, but it collects very important data and assesses security of voting machines. In these days especially of cyberhacking and lack of faith in American institutions, killing the EAC would be a very bad idea.

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93434&title=Pence-Kobach%20Commission%20Wants%20State%20Voter%20Data%3B%20Can%20It%20Protect%20Voter%20Privacy%3F%20Will%20State%20Election%20Officials%20Cooperate%3F%20Will%20House%20Kill%20EAC%3F>

Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, Election Assistance Commission<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=34>, fraudulent fraud squad<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

"Should It Be Easier To Vote? Americans Are Deeply Divided By Party"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93432>

Posted on June 29, 2017 8:39 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93432> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Pam Fessler for NPR:<http://www.npr.org/2017/06/28/534689899/should-it-be-easier-to-vote-americans-are-deeply-divided-by-party?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170628>

Most Americans - 59 percent - think everything possible should be done to make it easy for citizens to vote. Almost 80 percent say they oppose making voting mandatory. These are the results of a new survey from the Pew Research Center, which comes as partisan disputes over voting requirements continue in courts and legislatures across the country.

The poll shows a sharp partisan split over how easy it should be to cast a ballot. While 84 percent of Democrats favor making voting as easy as possible, only 35 percent of Republicans think that should be the case. Instead, 63 percent of Republicans - compared to 15 percent of Democrats - think citizens should prove they want to vote by registering in advance.

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93432&title=%E2%80%9CShould%20It%20Be%20Easier%20To%20Vote%3F%20Americans%20Are%20Deeply%20Divided%20By%20Party%E2%80%9D>

Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

Maine: "Voter-approved ranked-choice voting stays in effect as repeal bills fail"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93430>

Posted on June 29, 2017 8:14 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93430> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The latest<http://www.pressherald.com/2017/06/28/legislature-fails-to-repeal-voter-passed-ranked-choice-voting-law/>:

 A voter-approved law making Maine the first state in the nation to used ranked-choice voting for statewide elections will stay in effect until at least next year after two legislative efforts to repeal it were unsuccessful Wednesday.

The Legislature was attempting to respond to a May advisory opinion from the Maine Supreme Judicial Court<http://www.pressherald.com/2017/04/13/maines-high-court-hears-case-on-ranked-choice-voting/> that found the parts of the law that applied to races for the governor's office and Legislature were unconstitutional.

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93430&title=Maine%3A%20%E2%80%9CVoter-approved%20ranked-choice%20voting%20stays%20in%20effect%20as%20repeal%20bills%20fail%E2%80%9D>

Posted in alternative voting systems<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>

"Lawsuit challenges Seattle campaign 'democracy vouchers'"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93428>

Posted on June 29, 2017 8:09 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93428> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Seattle Times:<http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/lawsuit-challenges-seattle-campaign-democracy-vouchers/>

The U.S. Supreme Court has generally upheld the public financing of campaigns, within the limits of the First Amendment, saying that "public financing as a means of eliminating the improper influence of large private contributions furthers a significant governmental interest" - helping to eliminate corruption.

Under the complaint's rationale, virtually any public financing of campaigns that relies on tax revenue would be impermissible.

The lawsuit does not seek an immediate court order that would block the use of the vouchers this year; Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Ethan Blevins said that was a strategic move to give the court time to weigh the case, rather than rush a decision.

Adav Noti, a lawyer with the Washington, D.C.-based Campaign Legal Center, which supported Seattle's law, said he didn't know offhand of any other lawsuit that has challenged public campaign financing on grounds that it compels speech. He called the arguments weak, noting that people typically can't sue over how the government chooses to spend their taxes and drawing an analogy to the current White House press secretary.

"Could somebody bring a lawsuit saying, 'I don't want to subsidize Sean Spicer's salary because I don't like his speech?'" Noti asked.

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93428&title=%E2%80%9CLawsuit%20challenges%20Seattle%20campaign%20%E2%80%98democracy%20vouchers%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D>

Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

"New Report: How to Protect Election Infrastructure from Hostile Foreign Powers"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93426>

Posted on June 29, 2017 8:05 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93426> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Release of a very important Brennan Center report:<https://www.brennancenter.org/press-release/new-report-how-protect-election-infrastructure-hostile-foreign-powers>

 Amid ongoing congressional investigations into Russia's unprecedented cyberattacks around the 2016 election, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law released a report today outlining specific actions lawmakers can quickly take to insulate voting technology from continued foreign interference.

Securing Elections from Foreign Interference<https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/securing-elections-foreign-interference> focuses on assessing and securing two of the most vulnerable points in the system: voting machines, which could be hacked to cast doubt on or change vote totals; and voter registration databases, which could be manipulated in an attempt to block voters, cause disruption, and undermine confidence when citizens vote. Amb. R. James Woolsey, Director of Central Intelligence 1993-95, wrote the foreword for the report. He has been a key voice elevating the seriousness of the issue, and framing foreign interference as a pressing national security threat.

Solutions presented in the report are informed by interviews with security experts and election officials. The recommendations are the most immediate steps federal lawmakers and local election officials can take to secure systems before the 2018 and 2020 elections. They include:

  *   Replace old, paperless machines that are still used in 14 states with new, auditable systems that have backup paper records of an individual's vote
  *   Conduct audits of paper ballots to ensure machines are accurately recording votes
  *   Regularly assess vulnerabilities in and fortify cyber defenses of computerized voter registration systems
  *   Support efforts to upgrade or replace IT infrastructure, especially at the local level where systems often run on discontinued software like Windows XP and 2000 that is more vulnerable to cyberattacks

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93426&title=%E2%80%9CNew%20Report%3A%20How%20to%20Protect%20Election%20Infrastructure%20from%20Hostile%20Foreign%20Powers%E2%80%9D>

Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>

Pence-Kobach "Election Integrity" Commission to Meet First July 19<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93424>

Posted on June 28, 2017 1:51 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93424> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Readout.<https://twitter.com/srl/status/880160937159905282>

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93424&title=Pence-Kobach%20%E2%80%9CElection%20Integrity%E2%80%9D%20Commission%20to%20Meet%20First%20July%2019>

Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>

Pacific Legal Foundation Sues over "Democracy Vouchers" in Seattle<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93421>

Posted on June 28, 2017 1:34 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93421> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Release:<https://www.pacificlegal.org/releases/release-6-28-17-elster-3-1509>

Seattle's new "democracy voucher" program flouts the First Amendment by forcing property owners, through a new tax, to subsidize other people's political campaign donations and fund candidates not of their choosing.

There is nothing special about vouchers. All public financing programs do this.  If PLF were successful here, it would mean there could never be public funding for campaigns.

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93421&title=Pacific%20Legal%20Foundation%20Sues%20over%20%E2%80%9CDemocracy%20Vouchers%E2%80%9D%20in%20Seattle>

Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

"Yo Voté: Communities Scramble to Translate Ballots"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93418>

Posted on June 28, 2017 1:24 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93418> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Stateline reports.<http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2017/06/28/yo-vote-communities-scramble-to-translate-ballots>

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93418&title=%E2%80%9CYo%20Vot%C3%A9%3A%20Communities%20Scramble%20to%20Translate%20Ballots%E2%80%9D>

Posted in Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>

Did Sen. McConnell Choose the "BCRA" Name for His Health Care Law to Stick It to McCain-Feingold Supporters?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93416>

Posted on June 28, 2017 9:36 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93416> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

A reader emails with an interesting theory:

Plenty of pundits (presumably non-ELB readers) have recently puzzled aloud about the title that Majority Leader McConnell gave to the Senate substitute to the American Health Care Act ("weirdly named," said Ryan Grim). Some suggested that the cockroach-level polling of the AHCA led to a need to re-brand, which makes perfect sense but gets us only halfway. Others have suggested that "Reconciliation" was included to influence the parliamentarian to permit a simple majority vote even if negotiations lead the budget savings to vanish or get too close for comfort. A likely stretch, in my view, but one that still gets us only another quarter of the way to "Better Care Reconciliation Act." I have a strong hunch that the Better Care Reconciliation Act was not close to the top performer in polling or focus groups. And I have another hunch that you know where I'm going with this:

McConnell chose Better Care Reconciliation Act to symbolically bury the piece of legislation he hates most of all from his many decades of public service, which he litigated up through the Supreme Court in his own name, a bill most know as McCain-Feingold but one the drafters and courts and McConnell knew as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Already, a Google search for "BCRA" pushes McCain-Feingold to the fourth page (other than the Wikipedia disambiguation page), which was not true just two weeks ago (as you can confirm by searching BCRA with a date range before 6/14/2017, when it was the top hit).

There has been some talk of McConnell's "winning by losing" if failing to repeal the ACA paves the way to accomplish tax reform. But McConnell has already won a minor symbolic but assuredly sweet personal victory over his great nemesis. Add search engine optimization to his suite of formidable skills.

[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93416&title=Did%20Sen.%20McConnell%20Choose%20the%20%E2%80%9CBCRA%E2%80%9D%20Name%20for%20His%20Health%20Care%20Law%20to%20Stick%20It%20to%20McCain-Feingold%20Supporters%3F>

Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

--

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

rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>

http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/

http://electionlawblog.org<http://electionlawblog.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170629/4c0bff1c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170629/4c0bff1c/attachment.png>