[EL] Law-election Digest, Vol 84, Issue 2

Wed Apr 4 15:21:41 PDT 2018

Hi Steven,

As far as a longitudinal study of Iowa, to see how its partisan bias
changed over time, I don't think there is one.

I will tell you that I'm almost ready to do this myself.

I've collected Iowa precinct level election results from 1966 to
present and they are just about done.  This effort involved collecting
over half a million cells of data from 1,074 pages of returns.  Iowa
is especially generous in its reporting of precinct results, with
multiple statewide offices reported (Secretary of State, Auditor of
State, Attorney General, etc.).  The results of such offices mapped
onto state legislative districts are often used to assess partisan
bias.

Thanks,

Carl

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Steven John Mulroy (smulroy)
<smulroy at memphis.edu> wrote:
> Does anyone know of a study, news report, or other source looking at the partisan bias (seats-votes disparity) of Iowa redistricting plans in the last few decades since they've adopted their redistricting commission s ystem?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu
> Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 2:00 PM
> To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> Subject: Law-election Digest, Vol 84, Issue 2
>
> Send Law-election mailing list submissions to
>         law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         law-election-owner at department-lists.uci.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Law-election digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. ELB News and Commentary 4/2/18 (Rick Hasen)
>    2. ELB News and Commentary 4/3/18 (Rick Hasen)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2018 21:45:53 +0000
> From: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 4/2/18
> Message-ID: <918C4A9F-2D9A-4B97-A6F7-E5E9D6E83377 at ad.uci.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> ?Scalia?s Goal Of Unwinding Voter Protections Is Becoming A Reality?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98487>
> Posted on April 2, 2018 2:44 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98487> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I have written this piece<https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/scalias-goal-of-unwinding-voter-protections-is-becoming-a-reality> for TPM Cafe. It begins:
>
> In a Supreme Court term already bursting with election cases, from two<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gill-v-whitford/?wpmp_switcher=desktop> partisan gerrymandering disputes<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/benisek-v-lamone/?wpmp_switcher=desktop> to a fight<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/husted-v-philip-randolph-institute/?wpmp_switcher=desktop> about the permissibility of Ohio?s voter purges to a lawsuit<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/minnesota-voters-alliance-v-mansky/?wpmp_switcher=desktop> challenging bans on political clothing in Minnesota polling places, it?s easy to overlook yet another significant voting appeal the Court will hear later this month. In Abbott v. Perez<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/abbott-v-perez-2/?wpmp_switcher=desktop>, the Court will examine whether the state of Texas violated the Voting Rights Act and the United States Constitution when it drew congressional and state legislative district lines i
>    n ways that hurt Latino and African-American voters. The protracted and difficult litigation involves redistricting plans from way back in 2011 and shows how much was lost when the Supreme Court killed another key provision of the Voting Rights Act in its 2013 Shelby County v. Holder<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1305449212751290785&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr> case.
>
> Abbott v. Perez<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/abbott-v-perez-2/?wpmp_switcher=desktop> could well preview what?s likely to come in the next few years. All three branches of government have pulled back on protecting voting rights, and the effects of that move are becoming clear. We may soon fulfill the late Justice Antonin Scalia?s vision of an emasculated Voting Rights Act and much weaker protections for minority voters by the federal courts.
>
> It concludes:
>
> And the Supreme Court is poised to make things worse. With rumors circulating that perennial swing Justice Anthony Kennedy could retire as soon as this term, the Court is likely to lurch to the right<https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/politics/supreme-court-prepares-for-right-turn/index.html>. As I argue in my new book, The Justice of Contradictions: Antonin Scalia and the Politics of Disruption<https://www.amazon.com/Justice-Contradictions-Antonin-Politics-Disruption/dp/0300228643/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1516904231&sr=8-1&keywords=richard+l.+hasen>, the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia took an even narrower view of Voting Rights than the Court as a whole, and now, after his death, Justice Scalia?s influence is only growing<https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/scalias-legacy-is-stronger-than-ever.html>. If President Trump gets another appointment to the Supreme Court to replace Justice Kennedy, expect the next Justice (like new Justice Neil Gorsuch) to emulate Justice Scali
>    a?s approach and weaken voting rights even further.
>
> Justice Scalia openly expressed disdain for the Act, expressing the view<https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2012/12-96_7648.pdf> at the Shelby County oral argument that Congress renewed the Act in 2006 by overwhelming majorities because of ?a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement.? He believed<https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-204.ZX4.html> that Section 2 could well be an unconstitutional racial preference, and argued that, regardless, Section 2 should be read not to apply<https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-2012.ZC1.html> to redistricting matters at all.
>
> The bottom line is that the Court?s mixed record on enforcing the Voting Rights Act could soon get worse if Trump gets another Court appointment. Minority voters, already at a disadvantage in many parts of the country because of enduring racism and the unwillingness of white voters to support minority candidates for office<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3107752>, could soon have tougher political battles ahead. And the scariest part is that, thanks in part to Justice Scalia?s influence, the courts may soon no longer be there as a backstop.
> [Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98487&title=%E2%80%9CScalia%E2%80%99s%20Goal%20Of%20Unwinding%20Voter%20Protections%20Is%20Becoming%20A%20Reality%E2%80%9D>
> Posted in Scalia<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=123>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>
>
> Watch Archived Video of Sherillyn Ifill, Pam Karlan, Debo Adegbile, Steve Mulroy and Me Talk Voting Rights at MLK50 Event<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98485>
> Posted on April 2, 2018 2:40 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98485> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Alternative link.<https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=4VcLBVYkI4k>
> [Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98485&title=Watch%20Archived%20Video%20of%20Sherillyn%20Ifill%2C%20Pam%20Karlan%2C%20Debo%20Adegbile%2C%20Steve%20Mulroy%20and%20Me%20Talk%20Voting%20Rights%20at%20MLK50%20Event>
> Posted in Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>
>
> ?The Multiple Uses of Justice Scalia?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98483>
> Posted on April 2, 2018 2:37 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98483> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Calvin TerBeek blogs<https://balkin.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-multiple-uses-of-justice-scalia.html> at Balkinization.
> [Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98483&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Multiple%20Uses%20of%20Justice%20Scalia%E2%80%9D>
> Posted in Scalia<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=123>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
> Standing and Partisan Gerrymandering<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98481>
> Posted on April 1, 2018 8:13 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98481> by Nicholas Stephanopoulos<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=12>
>
> At first glance, a district-specific theory of partisan gerrymandering (like the one presented in Benisek) seems to approach the issue of standing very differently from a statewide gerrymandering theory (like the one presented in Whitford). After all, a plaintiff in a district-specific case complains only about her inability to elect her preferred candidate in her own district. A plaintiff in a statewide case, on the other hand, objects to the entire district map that dilutes the electoral influence of the plaintiff?s party.
>
> On closer inspection, however, the two views of standing become almost indistinguishable, at least for certain categories of voters. Consider the plaintiff in the district-specific case. Another way to describe her grievance is that she could have been placed in a district where she would have been able to elect her candidate of choice. But instead, the state chose to break apart the partisan group to which the plaintiff belongs, rendering that group unable to elect its preferred candidates in any of the districts in which the group?s members found themselves.
>
> Do any plaintiffs in statewide cases incur the same injury? Absolutely. Some of them (1) live in districts where they can?t elect their candidates of choice; yet (2) could have been placed in districts where they would have been able to elect their preferred candidates. These plaintiffs are in a position identical to that of the district-specific litigant. They are voters who are?but didn?t have to be?cracked.
>
> Unsurprisingly, the complaint in Whitford is full of stories of plaintiffs in this situation. Take Mary Lynne Donohue of Sheboygan, Wisconsin. ?Ms. Donohue was harmed when the City of Sheboygan was split into Districts 26 and 27.? Her district ?was cracked and converted from a Democratic to a Republican district.? If Sheboygan hadn?t been split, she would still have been in a Democratic district. Or consider Jerome Wallace, a resident of the suburbs north of Milwaukee. ?Mr. Wallace was harmed when Democrats in [his old district] were cracked so that his previously Democratic district is now a Republican district.? If the litigant in the district-specific case has standing, so must plaintiffs like Ms. Donohue and Mr. Wallace.
>
> Now, it?s true that statewide cases also include plaintiffs who allege packing rather than cracking. In Whitford, for instance, Wendy Sue Johnson lives in a heavily Democratic district in Eau Claire, and Janet Mitchell lives in another very Democratic district in Racine. Both Eau Claire and Racine could have yielded additional Democratic seats?and did yield them under Wisconsin?s previous map, which didn?t overconcentrate Democrats to the same degree.
>
> So do plaintiffs like Ms. Johnson and Ms. Mitchell have standing too? The district-specific case doesn?t answer the question, but Supreme Court precedents in the related area of racial vote dilution make clear that packing is just as harmful as cracking. ?[M]anipulation of district lines can dilute the voting strength of . . . minority group members . . . by fragmenting the minority voters among several districts . . . or by packing them into one or a small number of districts,? the Court explained in Johnson v. De Grandy. ?How such concentration or ?packing? may dilute minority voting strength is not difficult to conceptualize,? the Court added in Voinovich v. Quilter, using as an example a minority group large enough ?to constitute a majority in three districts? but instead ?packed into two districts.? Under these precedents, cracking and packing are indistinguishable for standing purposes.
>
> It?s true as well that statewide partisan gerrymandering cases include plaintiffs who aren?t deliberately cracked or packed themselves. The lead plaintiff in Whitford, Mr. William Whitford, lives in Madison and would be in a heavily Democratic district under any plausible map. Similarly, Democratic voters in Milwaukee?s ruby-red ?WOW? suburbs would be in Republican districts unless traditional line-drawing criteria were brazenly flouted.
>
> I think these plaintiffs nevertheless have standing. They are supporters of Democratic candidates and policies, and their collective representation in the Wisconsin legislature has been undermined by the district plan. Crucially, however, their status is legally irrelevant, because even if they don?t have standing, other plaintiffs undeniably do. In other words, the Court doesn?t have to decide whether party affiliation alone gives rise to an injury-in-fact, because that isn?t the only theory of harm presented in Whitford. Again, Ms. Donohue and Mr. Wallace have personally been cracked. Ms. Johnson and Ms. Mitchell have themselves been packed. Their claims to standing thus rest not just on party affiliation, but also on the cracking and packing that have long been recognized as sufficient bases to sue.
>
> But can these plaintiffs challenge the district map in its entirety? They sure can, if the Court?s related cases are any guide. In a one person, one vote suit, a single voter in a single overpopulated district has standing to attack the whole malapportioned plan. Additional plaintiffs in all of the plan?s other overpopulated districts aren?t required. In Voting Rights Act litigation, likewise, a single minority voter living in the area of the alleged vote dilution has standing to attack all of the ostensibly dilutive districts. Again, separate plaintiffs aren?t necessary in every place that cracking and packing may have occurred.
>
> The upshot of this discussion is that the Court can?t punt in Whitford by holding that Mr. Whitford (and other plaintiffs in his position) lack standing. Even if they lack it, other plaintiffs don?t. And under the Court?s precedents, those other plaintiffs are free to challenge the district map as a whole.
>
> Moreover, if the Court were to punt in Whitford, it would barely delay its confrontation with the merits of partisan gerrymandering claims. The Whitford litigants would surely seek leave to amend their complaint, and would add as plaintiffs many more Democratic voters as well as organizations with clear statewide interests, like the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. With every possible standing objection resolved, the Whitford litigants would then quickly return to the Court?s doorstep.
>
> Additionally, every possible standing objection has been resolved in another partisan gerrymandering case that?s already pending before the Court. In the litigation over North Carolina?s congressional plan, the plaintiffs include Democratic voters in every congressional district in the state, two good-government groups with statewide interests (Common Cause and the League of Women Voters), and the Democratic Party of North Carolina. A punt in Whitford would thus give the Court only a few months? respite before it has to decide another dispute in which no punt is possible.
> [Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98481&title=Standing%20and%20Partisan%20Gerrymandering>
> Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
> Top Recent Downloads in Election Law on SSRN<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98476>
> Posted on April 1, 2018 5:07 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98476> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Here<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/topten/topTenResults.cfm?groupingId=991929&netorjrnl=jrnl>:
>
> Recent Top Papers (60 days)
>
> As of: 31 Jan 2018 ? 01 Apr 2018
> Rank
>
> Paper
>
> Downloads
>
> 1.
>
> Online Political Microtargeting: Promises and Threats for Democracy<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3128787>
> Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1896949>, Judith Moeller<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=2533834>, Sanne Kruikemeier<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=2918680>, Ronan ? Fathaigh<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1877361>, Kristina Irion<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=792109>, Tom Dobber<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=2918681>, Bal?zs Bod?<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=666310> and Claes H. de Vreese<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=627839>
> University of Amsterdam ? IViR Institute for Information Law (IViR), University of Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam ? Institute for Information Law (IViR), University of Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam ? Institute for Information Law (IViR) and University of Amsterdam
>
> Date Posted: 26 Feb 2018
> Last Revised: 26 Feb 2018
>
> 133
>
> 2.
>
> The Consequences of Citizens United: What Do the Lawyers Say?<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3137211>
> Ann Southworth<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=372621>
> University of California, Irvine School of Law
>
> Date Posted: 12 Mar 2018
> Last Revised: 12 Mar 2018
>
> 87
>
> 3.
>
> Constitutional Preservation and the Judicial Review of Partisan Gerrymanders<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3128936>
> Edward B. Foley<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=33055>
> Ohio State University (OSU) ? Michael E. Moritz College of Law
>
> Date Posted: 24 Feb 2018
> Last Revised: 20 Mar 2018
>
> 87
>
> 4.
>
> The Disparate Impact Canon<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3110990>
> Michael Morley<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=2159971>
> Barry University School of Law
>
> Date Posted: 05 Feb 2018
> Last Revised: 05 Feb 2018
>
> 77
>
> 5.
>
> ?Civil Right No. 1:? Dr. King?s Unfinished Voting Rights Revolution<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3107752>
> Richard L. Hasen<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=337>
> University of California, Irvine School of Law
>
> Date Posted: 29 Jan 2018
> Last Revised: 21 Feb 2018
>
> 76
>
> 6.
>
> Campaign Finance, Free Speech, and Boycotts<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3102454>
> Ciara Torres-Spelliscy<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=584767>
> Stetson University ? College of Law
>
> Date Posted: 23 Jan 2018
> Last Revised: 22 Feb 2018
>
> 57
>
> 7.
>
> A Voice in the Wilderness: John Paul Stevens, Election Law, and a Theory of Impartial Governance<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3134212>
> Joshua Douglas<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=683935> and Cody Barnett<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=2852338>
> University of Kentucky ? College of Law and Independent
>
> Date Posted: 09 Mar 2018
> Last Revised: 09 Mar 2018
>
> 57
>
> 8.
>
> The Supreme Court, Judicial Elections, and Dark Money<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3119858>
> Richard Briffault<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=199186>
> Columbia Law School
>
> Date Posted: 08 Feb 2018
> Last Revised: 08 Feb 2018
>
> 48
>
> 9.
>
> Taking Virtual Representation Seriously<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3118775>
> Joseph Fishkin<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=664357>
> University of Texas at Austin ? School of Law
>
> Date Posted: 16 Feb 2018
> Last Revised: 23 Feb 2018
>
> 48
>
> 10.
>
> Race and Representation Revisited: The New Racial Gerrymandering Cases and Section 2 of the VRA<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3138260>
> Guy-Uriel E. Charles<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=282370> and Luis E. Fuentes-Rohwer<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=282368>
> Duke University School of Law and Indiana University Maurer School of Law
>
> Date Posted: 14 Mar 2018
> Last Revised: 14 Mar 2018
>
> 45
>
> [Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98476&title=Top%20Recent%20Downloads%20in%20Election%20Law%20on%20SSRN>
>
>
> --
> 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/20180402/56c33520/attachment-0001.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/20180402/56c33520/attachment-0001.png>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 14:52:55 +0000
> From: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 4/3/18
> Message-ID:
>         <BY2PR06MB1067B5CFAB348A8FC9359F088A50 at BY2PR06MB106.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> nteresting Concurring Opinion by Judge Motz in Unpublished 4th Circuit Order on North Carolina Change to Primary Rules<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98498>
> Posted on April 3, 2018 7:51 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98498> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Read it here.<http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/181150.U.pdf>
>
> It considers the kind of post-hoc arguments that can be made to justify a law affecting voting rights.
> [Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98498&title=Interesting%20Concurring%20Opinion%20by%20Judge%20Motz%20in%20Unpublished%204th%20Circuit%20Order%20on%20North%20Carolina%20Change%20to%20Primary%20Rules>
> Posted in The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
> "Don't let big and dark money 'drown out the truth and drown out your voice'"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98496>
> Posted on April 3, 2018 7:43 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98496> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Katrina vanden Heuvel WaPo column.<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/that-november-blue-wave-could-be-green-instead/2018/04/02/147d85a8-368e-11e8-8fd2-49fe3c675a89_story.html?utm_term=.306b4f1860ff>
> [Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98496&title=%E2%80%9CDon%E2%80%99t%20let%20big%20and%20dark%20money%20%E2%80%98drown%20out%20the%20truth%20and%20drown%20out%20your%20voice%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D>
> Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>
>
> Eric Segall: "Scalia the Justice: A Career of Contradictions (A Book Review)"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98494>
> Posted on April 3, 2018 7:38 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98494> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Generous book review by Eric Segall<http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2018/04/scalia-justice-career-of-contradictions.html>
> [Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98494&title=Eric%20Segall%3A%20%E2%80%9CScalia%20the%20Justice%3A%20A%20Career%20of%20Contradictions%20(A%20Book%20Review)%E2%80%9D>
> Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
> "CFI Launches Groundbreaking Database of 50 State Laws"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98492>
> Posted on April 3, 2018 7:29 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98492> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Release: <http://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/18-04-03/CFI%E2%80%99s_Groundbreaking_Database_Of_State_Campaign_Finance_Laws.aspx>
>
> he Campaign Finance Institute is pleased to release a groundbreaking new tool, "CFI's Historical Database of State Campaign Finance Laws<http://cfinst.org/statelaws.aspx>". The database covers all of the states' campaign finance laws every two years since 1996. It is designed for everything from interactive and visualized lookups to downloadable datasets.
>
>
>
>
>
> <http://cfinst.org/statelaws.aspx>Anyone with a serious interest in politics is bound to have made, heard, or wondered about claims to the effect that the laws governing money in politics "make a difference". These claims may be about who runs for office, how they campaign, who wins, how they govern, or what policies come out in the end. But until now it has been impossible to evaluate most of these claims properly. You cannot really understand a law's effects unless you can compare jurisdictions with different laws to themselves and each other over time.
>
> CFI's new tool<http://cfinst.org/statelaws.aspx> opens the door to let everyone make those comparisons. It covers every state since 1996 and is structured to handle queries from the simplest to the most complex. Because not everyone will want to use the tool in the same way, the material comes in two formats.
>
> One is a remarkably compact and attractive visualization that will let users look up the answers to what we expect will be their most common questions. For example:
> *         What are the laws in my state? When did they change?
> *         Which states disclose what kinds of information about independent spending?
> *         Which ones changed their contribution limits after Citizens United?
> *         Which states offer public financing or political contribution tax credits?
> *         In rank order, which states had higher and lower disclosure thresholds (or contribution limits, etc.) in any given year?
>
> All of these kinds of questions can be answered through the visualization tool<http://cfinst.org/statelaws.aspx>. But the tool is based on only a fraction of what the data can offer. The full database has literally hundreds of pieces of information for each state and year. The visualization only covers about 10% of these. The full set can be downloaded in whole, or part. It then can be manipulated or merged with other data sets at the user's pleasure. Downloading is the first step for answering "what difference" questions. For example:
>
> *         What difference does it make to have higher or lower limits?
>
> *         Is the law really responsible for a particular effect - whether positive or negative?...
> [Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98492&title=%E2%80%9CCFI%20Launches%20Groundbreaking%20Database%20of%2050%20State%20Laws%E2%80%9D>
> Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>
>
> "It's harder for Democrats to gerrymander effectively"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98490>
> Posted on April 3, 2018 7:23 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98490> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Vox reports.<https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/2/17173158/democrats-gerrymander-segregation>
> [Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98490&title=%E2%80%9CIt%E2%80%99s%20harder%20for%20Democrats%20to%20gerrymander%20effectively%E2%80%9D>
> Posted in redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
>
>
> "Scalia's Goal Of Unwinding Voter Protections Is Becoming A Reality"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98487>
> Posted on April 2, 2018 2:44 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98487> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I have written this piece<https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/scalias-goal-of-unwinding-voter-protections-is-becoming-a-reality> for TPM Cafe. It begins:
>
> In a Supreme Court term already bursting with election cases, from two<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gill-v-whitford/?wpmp_switcher=desktop> partisan gerrymandering disputes<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/benisek-v-lamone/?wpmp_switcher=desktop> to a fight<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/husted-v-philip-randolph-institute/?wpmp_switcher=desktop> about the permissibility of Ohio's voter purges to a lawsuit<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/minnesota-voters-alliance-v-mansky/?wpmp_switcher=desktop> challenging bans on political clothing in Minnesota polling places, it's easy to overlook yet another significant voting appeal the Court will hear later this month. In Abbott v. Perez<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/abbott-v-perez-2/?wpmp_switcher=desktop>, the Court will examine whether the state of Texas violated the Voting Rights Act and the United States Constitution when it drew congressional and state legislative district lines i
>    n ways that hurt Latino and African-American voters. The protracted and difficult litigation involves redistricting plans from way back in 2011 and shows how much was lost when the Supreme Court killed another key provision of the Voting Rights Act in its 2013 Shelby County v. Holder<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1305449212751290785&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr> case.
>
> Abbott v. Perez<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/abbott-v-perez-2/?wpmp_switcher=desktop> could well preview what's likely to come in the next few years. All three branches of government have pulled back on protecting voting rights, and the effects of that move are becoming clear. We may soon fulfill the late Justice Antonin Scalia's vision of an emasculated Voting Rights Act and much weaker protections for minority voters by the federal courts.
>
> It concludes:
>
> And the Supreme Court is poised to make things worse. With rumors circulating that perennial swing Justice Anthony Kennedy could retire as soon as this term, the Court is likely to lurch to the right<https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/politics/supreme-court-prepares-for-right-turn/index.html>. As I argue in my new book, The Justice of Contradictions: Antonin Scalia and the Politics of Disruption<https://www.amazon.com/Justice-Contradictions-Antonin-Politics-Disruption/dp/0300228643/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1516904231&sr=8-1&keywords=richard+l.+hasen>, the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia took an even narrower view of Voting Rights than the Court as a whole, and now, after his death, Justice Scalia's influence is only growing<https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/scalias-legacy-is-stronger-than-ever.html>. If President Trump gets another appointment to the Supreme Court to replace Justice Kennedy, expect the next Justice (like new Justice Neil Gorsuch) to emulate Justice Scali
>    a's approach and weaken voting rights even further.
>
> Justice Scalia openly expressed disdain for the Act, expressing the view<https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2012/12-96_7648.pdf> at the Shelby County oral argument that Congress renewed the Act in 2006 by overwhelming majorities because of "a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement." He believed<https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-204.ZX4.html> that Section 2 could well be an unconstitutional racial preference, and argued that, regardless, Section 2 should be read not to apply<https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-2012.ZC1.html> to redistricting matters at all.
>
> The bottom line is that the Court's mixed record on enforcing the Voting Rights Act could soon get worse if Trump gets another Court appointment. Minority voters, already at a disadvantage in many parts of the country because of enduring racism and the unwillingness of white voters to support minority candidates for office<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3107752>, could soon have tougher political battles ahead. And the scariest part is that, thanks in part to Justice Scalia's influence, the courts may soon no longer be there as a backstop.
> [Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98487&title=%E2%80%9CScalia%E2%80%99s%20Goal%20Of%20Unwinding%20Voter%20Protections%20Is%20Becoming%20A%20Reality%E2%80%9D>
> Posted in Scalia<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=123>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>
>
> --
> 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/20180403/65592655/attachment-0001.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/20180403/65592655/attachment-0001.png>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Law-election Digest, Vol 84, Issue 2
> *******************************************
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-- 
Dr. Carl Klarner

Academic / Political Consultant

Department of Political Science

University of Florida, Gainesville

Klarnerpolitics.com

Former Associate Professor of Political Science

Carl.Klarner at gmail.com

Cell: 812-514-9060