I suppose we could look at "deadlock" another way: that a motion to adopt a
rule was made and failed for want of four votes.  This is as much a failed
motion, as it is a deadlock.   The statute requires four votes for
Commission action, and there were not four votes to be had. 

 In fact, the reference to "deadlock" is a rhetorical maneuver, often used
in the reform community, intended to suggest that nothing happened and that
this is a bad outcome: that in some way, the issue was unresolved, and that
there is something unhealthy about the failure of the Commissioners to
produce a majority for or against the motion.   But something did happen:
the motion failed.  And it is not clear to me why there is anything
unhealthy or untoward about  an outcome decided by a 3-3 vote in an agency
that was constructed with 6 Commissioners and a rule requiring four votes
for an action. 

 And I note also this interesting notion of the rule of law:  that the law
is being violated, and that complaints will rain down on organizations and
individuals until the Commission decides what, in fact, the law is.  



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
To: AllisonHayward@aol.com; Vewu@aol.com; MFORSYTHE@bloomberg.net;
Rick.Hasen@lls.edu; election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Sent: 5/13/2004 2:02 PM
Subject: RE: FEC Deadlock today on 527s

I look forward to any explanation of why a 3-3 vote is not a
"deadlock"...
 
Interesting how some people are so sensitive to concerns about gridlock
and deadlock at the FEC all of a sudden!
 
By the way, what the Commission did today (aside from the 3-3 vote) was
to decide NOT to decide the issue for now, but rather to postpone the
decision for three months, until August (by which time perhaps four
Commissioners will be able to agree on an interpretation of a statutory
standard (organizations which have as their major purpose the
influencing of federal elections) which has been in effect for almost 30
years!
 
Trevor Potter

-----Original Message-----
From: AllisonHayward@aol.com [mailto:AllisonHayward@aol.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:45 PM
To: Trevor Potter; Vewu@aol.com; MFORSYTHE@bloomberg.net;
Rick.Hasen@lls.edu; election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: FEC Deadlock today on 527s


Well, if it is in Roll Call it must be true.

For those about to glaze over with boredom, here's a really quick
summary.  Four votes were taken. they were 2-4, 3-3, 2-4 and 6-0.

Trevor says this is "deadlocking."  I defer to his expertise in that
area.

Allison 






<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->

This message is for the use of the intended recipient only.  It is

from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and

confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,

copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is

prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please

advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication

by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.