| Subject: news of the day 12/15/04 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 12/15/2004, 7:42 AM |
| To: election-law |
I just received this
call for papers
from UC Berkeley's Civil Rights Project. It solicits proposals for
research papers addressing issues surrounding the reauthorization of
the Voting Rights Act in 2007.
Roll Call offers this
breaking news report
(paid subscription required), which begins: "A federal appeals court
has rejected Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell’s (R-Colo.) argument that the
Constitution shields lawmakers from suits brought under the
Congressional Accountability Act, becoming the third and highest court
to rule against the immunity defense. The decision, handed down late
Friday by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, means that
the age discrimination case brought by former Campbell employee Rita
Bastien in 2001 can proceed to trial. It also sets up a potential
Supreme Court fight over the parameters of the first landmark statute
to apply labor and workplace laws to Congress. " The decision
from the Tenth Circuit begins: "Our Constitution's Speech or Debate
Clause states that "for any Speech or Debate in either House, [members
of Congress] shall not be questioned in any other Place." U.S. Const.
art. I, § 6, ¶ 1. The issue before us is whether this Clause precludes
Plaintiff Rita Bastien's employment-discrimination claim brought under
the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (the CAA). Senator Ben
Nighthorse Campbell fired Plaintiff from her position on his staff. Her
duties included meeting with the public to obtain information used by
the Senator for both constituent services and his legislative agenda.
We hold that suit is not barred because the claim does not question the
conduct of official Senate legislative business by Senator Campbell or
his aides. We do not address, however, whether certain evidence may be
inadmissible in this litigation because it concerns such conduct."
The Hill offers this
report,
which begins: A group of House Republican lawmakers, stewing over a
Democratic ethics complaint filed against Majority Leader Tom DeLay
(R-Texas), is pressing for the GOP to file a reciprocal complaint
against Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for violating
campaign-finance law. That would shatter what’s left of the ethics
truce party leaders forged in the late ’90s and could lead Republicans
and Democrats to remilitarize the ethics battlefield with tit-for-tat
complaints. Some Republican lawmakers are exhorting their colleagues to
back away from such a war."
The Seattle Times offers this
report. See also this
Washington Post report.
The Los Angeles Times story is here.
The San Diego Union-Tribune story is here.
I'll be on KPBS Radio's "These Days" this morning at around 9:20 am PST
talking about the issues. You can find a stream here.
The newpaper offers this
front-page story, "Several Factors Contributed to 'Lost' Voters in
Ohio." Don't miss it.
-- 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