[EL] ELB News and Commentary 5/2/18

Wed May 2 07:38:51 PDT 2018

“Secret Donors Lose Round as Court Expedites FEC Disclosure Case”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98933>
Posted on May 2, 2018 7:35 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98933> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bloomberg BNA:<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=133167097&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=000001631cc0df1ba56b3cc54f6a0002&split=0>
The federal appeals court in Washington will quickly review whether to keep secret the identity of “John Doe” plaintiffs trying to prevent the Federal Election Commission from revealing their role in campaign spending.
Briefing in the case, known as John Doe v. FEC, is set to be completed by July 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered. The order followed a motion<http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/John_Doe_1_et_al_v_FEC_Docket_No_1805099_DC_Cir_Apr_12_2018_Court?doc_id=X1Q6NVRPGL82> for expedited consideration from FEC lawyers, who said “the commission and the public have an unusual interest in expedited review” of the disclosure issues involved in the case.
One of the secret plaintiffs, known as John Doe 2, “was the undisputed source of the contribution at issue,” according to the FEC’s motion to speed up the case. The plaintiffs funneled $1.7 million to a super-political action committee through a well-known nonprofit, the American Conservative Union, which was falsely reported as the source of the contribution.
The super-PAC, called Now or Never PAC, spent more than $8 million, mostly on TV ads, opposing Democrats in the 2012 and 2014 elections.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98933&title=%E2%80%9CSecret%20Donors%20Lose%20Round%20as%20Court%20Expedites%20FEC%20Disclosure%20Case%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

ACS Phone Briefing Today: Judicial Gerrymandering? The Voting Rights Act, Judicial Elections, and Redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98931>
Posted on May 2, 2018 7:33 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98931> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Details:<https://events.acslaw.org/rsvp?id=a0Y0f00000CLvKcEAL>

Judicial Gerrymandering? The Voting Rights Act, Judicial Elections, and Redistricting
May 2, 2018
01:00 PM – 02:00 PM

Event Location:
ACS Webinar
,

Details:
In recent weeks, the North Carolina General Assembly has proposed redrawing the map of the state’s District and Superior courts. Analysis<https://www.southerncoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/SCSJ-Judicial-Redistricting-Analysis-FINAL-rev.-3-20-18.pdf> of one proposed new map found it to be a racial and partisan gerrymander, with significant population deviations. The changes would “double-bunk<http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2018/02/16/judges-double-bunked-new-maps-heres-list/>” incumbent judges, reducing the number of judges of color in the state.

With that context in mind, this call will provide an overview of Voting Rights Act jurisprudence as it relates to judicial elections. It will also cover the status of recent litigation challenging judicial districts under the VRA, such as Terrebonne Parish NAACP v. Jindal<http://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/terrebonne-parish-branch-naacp-et-al-v-jindal-et-al>, and Alabama NAACP v. Alabama<https://lawyerscommittee.org/project/voting-rights-project/litigation/alabama-state-conference-naacp-et-al-v-state-alabama-et-al/>. Finally, the call will discuss the importance of a diverse judiciary and independent state courts, and how judicial redistricting can promote or undermine those aims.

Speakers:
Leah Aden<http://www.naacpldf.org/leah-aden>, Senior Counsel, NAACP-LDF
Kareem Crayton<http://www.southerncoalition.org/portfolio-item/kareem-crayton/>, Executive Director, Southern Coalition for Social Justice
Ezra Rosenberg<https://lawyerscommittee.org/staff/ezra-rosenberg/>, Co-Director, Voting Rights Project, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

RSVP here<http://events-na1.adobeconnect.com/content/connect/c1/2260329388/en/events/event/shared/default_template_simple/event_landing.html?sco-id=2508101290>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98931&title=ACS%20Phone%20Briefing%20Today%3A%20Judicial%20Gerrymandering%3F%20The%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%2C%20Judicial%20Elections%2C%20and%20Redistricting>
Posted in judicial elections<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>, redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>

“Open-seat House hopefuls spend millions”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98929>
Posted on May 1, 2018 7:45 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98929> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Open Secrets reports:<https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/05/open-seat-house-hopefuls-spend-millions/>

The growing number<https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/departures-by-cycle> of departures by House incumbents this cycle is leaving a Wild West of open-seat races, some of which feature deep-pocketed candidates elbowing for a two-year stint in Congress.

The top self-funded candidates so far include familiar faces from elections’ past, such as Trone and Flinn, both of whom spent millions in failed House bids two years ago. And new ones, such as former California Mega Millions Lottery winner Gil Cisneros, a Democrat who appears to be the party’s pick<http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-dccc-elevates-democrat-gil-cisneros-in-1524027131-htmlstory.html#nt=card> in a congested primary race.

The 400-plus House candidates running for open seats this year have spent more than $32 million on their campaigns. Fourteen have spent at least $500,000.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98929&title=%E2%80%9COpen-seat%20House%20hopefuls%20spend%20millions%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

“Kobach can pay contempt costs with state money, after lawmakers drop ban”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98927>
Posted on May 1, 2018 7:38 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98927> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

KC Star:<http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article210247164.html>

Kansas lawmakers have abandoned an effort to force Secretary of State Kris Kobach to pay out of his own pocket the costs of being held in contempt of court.

The decision ended a looming showdown between Kobach and the Legislature over who is on the hook financially. Kobach was dressed down by a federal judge during a civil trial over voter rights and ordered to pay attorney fees for the plaintiffs in the case.

The Legislature’s decision to drop the effort means Kobach will be able to use state money to pay any fines stemming from being found in contempt.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98927&title=%E2%80%9CKobach%20can%20pay%20contempt%20costs%20with%20state%20money%2C%20after%20lawmakers%20drop%20ban%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>

“U.S. District Court Puts Congressman Doug Lamborn on Colorado Republican Primary Ballot”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98925>
Posted on May 1, 2018 3:09 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98925> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

BAN:<http://ballot-access.org/2018/05/01/u-s-district-court-puts-congressman-doug-lamborn-on-colorado-republican-primary-ballot/>

On May 1, U.S. District Court Judge Philip Brimmer issued a 25-page order<http://ballot-access.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/gov.uscourts.cod_.179610.44.0.pdf> in Goodall v Williams, 1:18cv-980. The order enjoins the Secretary of State of Colorado from enforcing the state’s ban on out-of-state circulators for candidate petitions. It also puts Congressman Doug Lamborn, a Republican who is running for re-election, back on the Republican primary ballot. The Colorado Supreme Court had removed him last week because it had found that he used petitioners who were not Colorado residents. But the Colorado Supreme Court had said nothing about the constitutionality of the ban on out-of-state petitioners.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98925&title=%E2%80%9CU.S.%20District%20Court%20Puts%20Congressman%20Doug%20Lamborn%20on%20Colorado%20Republican%20Primary%20Ballot%E2%80%9D>

Posted in ballot access<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>, direct democracy<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>

“New Report on Impact of Seattle’s Democracy Voucher Program on Candidates’ Ability to Rely on Constituents for Fundraising”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98923>
Posted on May 1, 2018 1:51 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98923> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Release:<https://freespeechforpeople.org/new-report-on-impact-of-seattles-democracy-voucher-program-on-candidates-ability-to-rely-constituents-for-fundraising/>

Today, Free Speech For People released a new issue report on The Impact of Seattle’s Democracy Voucher Program on Candidates’ Ability to Rely on Constituents for Fundraising<https://freespeechforpeople.org/research-reports/#the-impact-of-seattle8217s-democracy-voucher-program-on-candidates8217-ability-to-rely-on-constituents-for-fundraising->.

In 2015, Seattle voters enacted a novel democracy voucher program<http://www.seattle.gov/democracyvoucher/about-the-program> for public campaign financing. The objective of this analysis was to examine whether the democracy voucher program, first used in the 2017 election, led to candidates relying more on constituents, as opposed to non-constituent donors from other parts of the state or country, for their campaign funding. As we have explained<https://freespeechforpeople.org/new-friend-court-brief-argues-self-government/>, when political candidates rely on non-constituent donors for a significant portion of their campaign funding, democratic self-government may be affected because the policies and preferences of non-constituent donors often differ from those of constituents.

The results indicate that candidates who chose to participate in the voucher program raised a notably higher percentage of their funds from constituents than the typical percentages raised in pre-voucher elections, or by non-voucher-funded 2017 candidates. Before the voucher program, recent candidates for Seattle city office generally raised 65-80% of their funds from in-city. In the first voucher election, the two citywide (at-large) city council positions up for election saw a dramatic increase in the percentage of contributions from Seattle residents, with 93% or more of contributions coming from in-city. The city attorney candidate who participated in the voucher program saw a similar increase into the 90% in-city range from 2009 to 2017. In contrast, candidates who did not use the voucher program—either because they chose not to participate in the program, or ran in the mayoral race, which was not eligible for vouchers—raised funds in-city consistent with pre-voucher levels.

The overall trend is clear. The democracy voucher program enables candidates to raise the vast majority of their funds from constituents, as opposed to out-of-city donors.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98923&title=%E2%80%9CNew%20Report%20on%20Impact%20of%20Seattle%E2%80%99s%20Democracy%20Voucher%20Program%20on%20Candidates%E2%80%99%20Ability%20to%20Rely%20on%20Constituents%20for%20Fundraising%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

Maryland Appellate Blog: “The Democracy Canon and the Oaks Ballot Dispute”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98921>
Posted on May 1, 2018 1:45 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98921> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Steve Klepper:<https://mdappblog.com/2018/05/01/the-democracy-canon-and-the-oaks-ballot-dispute/>

The Maryland high court is about to hear, on emergency briefing, the appeal in Lamone v. Lewin. The administrator of the State Board of Elections is challenging the April 26 injunction requiring that former state senator Nathaniel Oaks’ name be removed from the June primary ballot.

The Court granted certiorari<https://mdappblog.com/2018/04/27/court-of-appeals-to-review-injunction-removing-oaks-from-primary-ballot/> on Friday. The parties filed opening briefs on Monday and reply briefs on Tuesday, with arguments Wednesday. The briefs are available here<https://mdcourts.gov/coappeals/highlightedcases>.

The briefing is superb on both sides. Julia Doyle Bernhardt and Andrea Trento, with the Office of the Attorney General, and Mark Sitchel and Elizabeth Harlan, representing the challengers, did top-flight work on a frantic schedule. The quality of briefing should make the Court’s job easier, but the ultimate choice is a difficult one.Notwithstanding pending criminal charges against him, then-Senator Nat Oaks filed papers seeking the Democratic nomination for reelection to his Senate seat and for a seat on the Democratic State Central Committee on February 27, 2018. The statutory deadline for withdrawal was March 1. Four weeks later, Oaks pleaded guilty to wire fraud and resigned from the Maryland Senate. But Oaks was still a registered voter and was not in prison at the time, so he still remained technically eligible for the ballot, at least until his post-primary sentencing hearing. Three voters, including two candidates for central committee, filed suit on April 9, seeking to remove Oaks’ name from the ballot. The Anne Arundel County Circuit Court initially denied relief but granted reconsideration when Oaks voluntarily resigned his registration as a Maryland voter.

The Board of Elections’ argument is straightforward. The Election Law Article contains clear deadlines, with “shall” language; it is unworkable for the Board to exercise discretion under these rules; and it is too late from a logistical standpoint to remove Oaks’ name from the ballot. Much of its argument consists of pointing to slippery slopes. The Board asserts that in “this election cycle alone, ten candidates have asked to have their names removed from the ballot since the passing of the withdrawal deadline,” and that removing Oaks’ name would require the Board to accommodate those other requests.

These are weighty concerns, but the challengers ask the Court to follow other states’ lead and read the Election Law Article with an eye to what leading scholar Rick Hasen<https://twitter.com/rickhasen> calls the “Democracy Canon….
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98921&title=Maryland%20Appellate%20Blog%3A%20%E2%80%9CThe%20Democracy%20Canon%20and%20the%20Oaks%20Ballot%20Dispute%E2%80%9D>
Posted in ballot access<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>

#HimToo: Second Secretary of State Quits Amid Sexual Harassment Allegations<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98919>
Posted on May 1, 2018 1:39 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98919> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

First it was Wyoming,<https://www.wyomingnews.com/news/local_news/wyoming-secretary-of-state-ed-murray-resigns-amid-sexual-misconduct/article_af206e86-0df3-11e8-a536-bb395090956b.html> now Louisiana<https://apnews.com/4e9bac380f8e45b8b7db95b777fd4e6b>:

 With calls for his resignation increasing, Louisiana’s secretary of state announced Tuesday that he is leaving his position as state elections chief amid allegations he sexually harassed one of his employees.

Secretary of State Tom Schedler said in a letter to the governor that he will be stepping down May 8, becoming the highest-level public official in Louisiana to be felled by sexual misconduct accusations since the #MeToo movement began unseating people in positions of power in Hollywood, the media and government.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98919&title=%23HimToo%3A%20Second%20Secretary%20of%20State%20Quits%20Amid%20Sexual%20Harassment%20Allegations>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>

Lawsuit Accusing Former NC Gov McCrory, Holtzman Vogel Law Firm of Defamation for Falsely Claiming Voters Committed Fraud Survives Motion to Dismiss<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98917>
Posted on May 1, 2018 1:36 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98917> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

News and Observer:<http://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article210210349.html>

Four North Carolina voters can pursue their libel lawsuit against allies of former Gov. Pat McCrory and a Virginia law firm that tried to help the Republican politician’s unsuccessful effort to disqualify votes and win re-election in 2016, attorneys learned Tuesday.

Superior Court Judge Allen Baddour notified attorneys he’s decided to allow the four plaintiffs to continue their claims against the Pat McCrory Committee Legal Defense Fund, the Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky law firm and four of the Warrenton, Virginia-based firm’s attorneys. The McCrory allies helped mount a last-ditch effort to sway a close election for governor by accusing voters in 52 counties of double voting and other misdeeds.

The voters from Guilford and Brunswick counties sued after being falsely accused of felony voting crimes like casting ballots in multiple states.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98917&title=Lawsuit%20Accusing%20Former%20NC%20Gov%20McCrory%2C%20Holtzman%20Vogel%20Law%20Firm%20of%20Defamation%20for%20Falsely%20Claiming%20Voters%20Committed%20Fraud%20Survives%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss>
Posted in The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

“Brad Schimel Claims Voter Fraud in Waukesha County”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98915>
Posted on May 1, 2018 7:33 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98915> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Urban Milwaukee reports.<https://urbanmilwaukee.com/pressrelease/brad-schimel-claims-voter-fraud-in-waukesha-county/>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98915&title=%E2%80%9CBrad%20Schimel%20Claims%20Voter%20Fraud%20in%20Waukesha%20County%E2%80%9D>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>

“Looking Back at Scalia’s Controversial ‘Long Game'”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98913>
Posted on May 1, 2018 7:30 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=98913> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

I did a really great Q and A<https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2018/04/30/looking-back-at-scalias-controversial-long-game/> with Tony Mauro for the May issue of the National Law Journal about 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>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D98913&title=%E2%80%9CLooking%20Back%20at%20Scalia%E2%80%99s%20Controversial%20%E2%80%98Long%20Game%27%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Scalia<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=123>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

--
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/20180502/e86099c2/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/20180502/e86099c2/attachment.png>