Subject: BCRA plus
From: Rick Hasen
Date: 9/8/2003, 6:31 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu

And in other election law news today.... The Denver Post offers "Colorado Justices Set to Consdier GOP's remap." (Thanks to J.J. Gass for the link.) The Ninth Circuit, in Idaho Coalition United for Bears v. Cenarussa, struck down an Idaho law that required collecting signatures to place a ballot measure on the ballot from a certain number of counties with unequal populations: "Because Idaho's counties vary widely in population, this geographic distribution requirement favors residents of sparsely populated areas over residents of more densely populated areas in their respective efforts to participate in the process of qualifying initiatives for the ballot. The district court held that this unequal treatment violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." (Link via How Appealing). I'll be traveling tomorrow, so it is likely I'll do little blogging.

Early post-BCRA argument reports Washington Post; A.P.; New York Times; Los Angeles Times; Reuters; NPR (audio); UPI; Knight-Ridder; BBC. See also Tom Mann's Washington Post internet chat.

By the way, if you read my afternoon argument report, you will note I make the statement that no one mentioned the Beaumont case at oral argument today.  Two other list members who attended the argument told me that this is incorrect; in fact Seth Waxman mentioned the case.

Rick