Subject: news of the day 7/29/04 |
From: Rick Hasen |
Date: 7/29/2004, 9:45 AM |
To: election-law |
A.P. has the details here.
Thanks to Ed Still for the pointer. If anyone has the document or a
link to it, let me know and I'll link or post it.
BNA reports here
(paid subscription required) that "The Federal Election Commission has
agreed to a fast-track schedule that would allow a federal court to
take up by Aug. 12 a challenge to restrictions on political advertising
linked to the U.S. Senate race in Wisconsin." My earlier coverage is here and here.
See Democrats
Tap a Rich Lode: Young, Well-Off Social Liberals; Political
Contributors Step Up to the Plate; and this
editorial on Ralph Nader being "Banned in Boston."
A.P. offers this report. I expect Dan Tokaji will have more coverage later today here.
In somewhat related news, Roll Call (which is evidently free
this week to non-subscribers) offers Paper
Ballot Advocates Plan Ohio Expert Team.
Law.com offers this
report. Thanks to Steven Sholk for the pointer to this and other
law.com and Wall Street Journal articles today.
The New York Times offers this
editorial. See also this
Washington Post report.
The New York Times offers this
report,
which begins: "Harold M. Ickes is a founder of an organization created
to help defeat President Bush this fall, a group that he emphasizes
operates wholly independently of the campaign of Senator John Kerry and
the Democratic National Committee. But that has not stopped him from
courting some of the Democrats' wealthiest donors here at the Four
Seasons, a nexus of party operatives, Kerry campaign officials and
friendly celebrities gathered for the party's convention this week. In
a luxurious suite where guests nibble on chocolate ganache tarts and
sip espresso, he asks them to give and give more."
Jeff
Manza, Clem Brooks and Christopher Uggen have written "Public Attitudes
toward Felon Disenfranchisement in the Untied States ", 68 Public Opn.
Quarterly 275 (2004). A snippet: "For all categories of felons who are
not currently in prison, relatively large majorities (betwen 80 percent
in the case of generic ex-felons and 52% in the cae of former sex
offenders) favor enfranchisement. Additionally, we find evidence that
between 60 and 68 percent of the public believes that felony
probationers....should have their voting rights restored."
See this
A.P. report. Note the quote from Floyd Abrams, one of the
plaintiffs' attorneys in McConnell:
"Obviously, the government would argue it's already been decided," said Abrams, who is not involved in this case. "But by focusing on a particular ad in a particular place, there's at least a possibility that the courts might say that we didn't really mean there were no cases in which the 30- and 60-day provision was immune from challenge."
I have just received in the mail Volume 13, Issue 2 (2004) of the Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues. The issue features a symposium on direct democracy with contributions by Gail Heriot, Lynn Baker, Sherman Clark, Clay Gilette, Marci Hamilton, Nelson Lund, John Matsusaka, Maimon Schwartzchild, me, and Dane Waters. Eventually I expect the entire issue to be posted here.
-- 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