Subject: Re: news of the day 12/5/03
From: Rick Hasen
Date: 12/5/2003, 1:25 PM
To: Marty Lederman
CC: Roy Schotland <schotlan@law.georgetown.edu>, election-law <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Reply-to:
rick.hasen@mail.lls.edu

The question is one of time horizons.  I think that given the positions of Democrats for this round of redistricting at least, whatever they can do to change the balance of power in the House would be in their short term interest.  (On the Republicans' advantages, see Sam Hirsch, The United States House of Unrepresentatives: What Went Wrong in the Latest Round of Congressional Redistricting, 2 Election Law Journal 179 (2002).)  This is not universally true for all Democrats even this decade.  See for example, this brief filed by the (Democratic) Alabama legislative leadership, supporting the Republicans in Vieth:
http://www.jenner.com/news/pdfs/Alabama_amicus_brief.pdf

The harder question is the long term.  Those familiar with Phil Burton's Democratic redistricting in California might never have imagined that the tables would turn.  I think they could well turn again against Republicans, though probably not in this decade.  So even those Democrats with a partisan outlook might not agree to give partisan gerrymandering more teeth if they are looking sufficiently in the long term.

I must confess that I'm not a regular reader of the Wall Street Journal opinion page.  Perhaps it was unfair of me to expect that the editorial board might change their view on the virtues of court intervention in partisan gerrymandering now that it helps Republicans.  Certainly there are Democrats who had called on the courts to stay out of it in the 1980s who are more sympathetic now.  (Indeed, that is the thrust of the WSJ editorial).


Marty Lederman wrote:
More fundamentally, is it obvious that there is a "Democratic" and a "Republican" "side" in Vieth, other than in the narrow sense that Democrats would benefit in Pennsylvania if the Court were to invalidate the redistricting that occurred there?  It is very consipcuous that, so far as I know, the national parties have not taken any "sides" in the case.  (I'd be interested to hear if they have said anything about it at all.)  Right now, of course, the Republicans are cleaning the Democrats' clock on redistricting across the country, both because they focused for the past couple of decades on gaining control of state houses, and because at present they're much better, and more ruthless, at playing the game.  But is there any consensus that, in the long term, a reversal in Vieth would benefit the Democratic Party?  What would Phil Burton say?
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Roy Schotland
To: Rick Hasen
Cc: election-law
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: news of the day 12/5/03

Re Rick's comment that WSJournal's editorial "somewhat surprisingly sid[es] with the Democrats in the Vieth case"--
    Rick, I'm one of the legions who is all-out negative on WSJ editorial page, but fact is that, so far as I recall, they've always been a tiger against gerrymandering.  (Unlike the NYTimes and WSPost which almost never note districting tho they think there's no such thing as excessively frequent editorials on campaign finance reform.)  As I recall, some years back --maybe even early 1990s-- WSJ had a lead editorial decrying gerrymandering, headed: "Incumbent's Warcry [or something like that]: `I came, I saw, I gerrymandered.'"

Rick Hasen wrote:

 

Soros on Soros and BCRA

See here. Among Soros's arguments:
    The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was an attempt to limit the influence that special interests can gain by financing candidates and to level the playing field between the two parties. My contributions are made in that spirit.

    President Bush has a huge fundraising advantage because he has figured out a clever way to raise money. He relies on donors he calls "Pioneers," who collect $100,000 apiece in campaign contributions in increments that fall within the legal limit of $2,000 a person, and on those he calls "Rangers," who collect at least $200,000.

    Many of these Pioneers and Rangers are corporate officials who are well situated to raise funds from their business associates, bundle them together and pass them along with tracking numbers to ensure proper "credit." They are buying the same level of access and influence for their corporate interests that they previously obtained with their own and corporate funds. With the help of Pioneers and Rangers, President Bush is on track to collect $200 million.

    To counter the fundraising advantage obtained by this strategy, I have contributed to independent organizations that by law are forbidden to coordinate their activities with the political parties or candidates. That law minimizes or eliminates the ability to purchase influence in exchange for my contribution. Moreover, I don't seek such influence. My contributions are made in what I believe to be the common interest. ACT is working to register voters, and MoveOn is getting more people engaged in the national debate over Bush's policies.

 

"DeLay Fundraising for Charity Challenged"

The Washington Post offers this report.
 

"Court: Unenrolled Can Vote in Independence Primary"

A.P. has this report out of New York.
 
 

Report on Democratic Leaning Environmental 527 Organization

See this Chicago Tribune report (free registration required).
 

"GOP cries foul as Democrats skirt campaign law"

Joel Connelly offers this Seattle Post-Intelligencer commentary.
 
 

Dean's switch on campaign financing

Following up on this post, it appears (according to a BNA report) that an FEC draft holds that Dean and other presidential candidates are not bound by any earlier promises they had made to abide by spending limits in exchange for public financing. Dean had changed his position, before he took any funding from the government.
 
 

Commentary on Vieth (Partisan Gerrymandering case)

The Wall Street Journal offers this editorial (somewhat surprisingly siding with the Democrats in the Vieth case). Sam Hirsch (a lawyer for the plaintiffs) and Professor Nate Persily discussed the case yesterday on NPR's Diane Rehm show (audio link here.) There has not yet been much commentary against greater court policing of partisan gerrymandering in Vieth. My oped, scheduled to appear in Monday's Legal Times, takes that position.
 

"Now It is Thunder from the Left, Too, In the Ad War"

The Christian Science Monitor offers this report.
 
 

NYT Readers Respond to Krugman's Hack the Vote Piece on DRE Security

See here.
 

Surprising Development in Colorado Redistricting case

See Dem Files Suit to Revive GOP Map Plan, which begins: "A Democratic lawmaker has sued the state in federal court, attacking Monday's decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that threw out a Republican-drawn congressional redistricting law.
The lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Denver by Rep. Carl Miller, D-Leadville, and three Republicans, contends that the decision violated the U.S. Constitution." See also this Denver Post article. Thanks to Rob Witwer for the pointers. 
-- 
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org

--
Roy A. Schotland
Professor
Georgetown U. Law Ctr.
600 New Jersey Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
phone 202/662-9098
fax        662-9680 or -9444
  


-- 
Professor Rick Hasen
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA  90015-0019
(213)736-1466 - voice
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org