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

Thu Apr 5 04:25:35 PDT 2018

Hi Steven,

I have not analyzed the metrics used on the PlanScorel.org website, but it
appears to have data for Iowa state house seats going back to the 1970s.
See https://planscore.org/iowa/#!2012-plan-statehouse-eg.

Best,
Lloyd

Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer <http://law.nd.edu/directory/lloyd-mayer/>
Professor of Law
Notre Dame Law School
P.O. Box 780
Notre Dame, IN 46556-0780
campus address:  3155 Eck Hall of Law
(574) 631-8057/cell:  (574) 598-0740/fax: (574) 631-8078
SSRN Author Page
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=504775>

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 6:21 PM, Carl Klarner <carl.klarner at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 Sca
>  li
> >    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://department-lists.uci.edu/pipermail/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://department-lists.uci.edu/pipermail/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 Sca
>  li
> >    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://department-lists.uci.edu/pipermail/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://department-lists.uci.edu/pipermail/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
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://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/20180405/1a334d3e/attachment.html>