| Subject: news of the day 2/4/05 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 2/4/2005, 8:43 AM |
| To: election-law |
You can find a link to the articles in Volume 32, Number 3 of the Federal
Law Review (Australia) here.
Unfortunately, the articles themselves are not on line without a
subscription. Here is the table of contents:
ARTICLES
Australian Electoral Law: 'Free and Fair'?
BRYAN MERCURIO AND GEORGE WILLIAMS
Public Funding and Expenditure Regulation of Australian Political
Parties: Some Reflections
JOO-CHEONG THAM AND DAVID GROVE
The Ritual and Aesthetic in Electoral Law
GRAEME ORR
'All is Changed, Changed Utterly'? — The Causes and Consequences
of New Zealand's Adoption of MMP
ANDREW GEDDIS AND CAROLINE MORRIS
COMMENT
Compulsory Voting in Australia: A Basis For A 'Best Practice' Regime
LISA HILL
BOOK REVIEWS
Selective Democracy: Race, Gender and the Australian Vote
JENNIFER NORBERRY
The Supreme Court and Election Law: Judging Equality from Baker v
Carr to Bush v Gore
DAVID TUCKER
You can find it here.
Thanks to Robbin Stewart for the link.
The Sacraemento Bee offers Elections
Official Rips Shelley and Núñez
gives Shelley incentive to quit.
The Los Angeles Times offers this
report,
with the subhead: "Schwarzenegger aides deny that he runs a committee
accepting unlimited donations. If he did, state law would restrict
contributions." This is hardly surprising, given the vagueness problems
with the FPPC regulation that I've flagged in my forthcoming
Southern California Law Review paper and my recent
L.A.Times oped.
The article does not mention a separate FPPC provision that would
potentially kick in if "Citizens to Save California" wants to run TV
ads within 45 days of the special election featuring Schwarzenegger.
That provision limits contributions to $25,000 to fund such ads made at
the "behest" of a candidate. The FPPC has taken the position that this
would not apply to officeholders like Schwarzenegger, who are not
running for reelection on the same ballot (and therefore not
"candidates" for purposes of that provision), but perhaps someone will
challenge that interpretation. In the meantime, I'm not aware of any
constitutional challenge that has been mounted to the FPPC rules. My
law review article addresses the constitutional questions in some
detail.
The New York Times offers this
report.
The New York Times offers this
report. Because of a BCRA inflation provision, the individual
contribution limits to federal candidates has now risen to $2100.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer offers this
report,
which begins: "The battle over Washington's gubernatorial election
resumes today in Wenatchee, where a Chelan County judge is expected to
decide a host of issues that could determine whether a Republican court
challenge to Democrat Christine Gregoire's controversial victory has
the legal legs to stand trial."
The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette offers this
editorial,
which begins: "Anyone who respects the integrity of Indiana’s state and
local elections – including Republican Secretary of State Todd Rokita –
ought to be concerned about Senate Bill 500. The proposed legislation
eliminates bipartisan protections in state law and gives effective
control of all elections to the GOP."
-- Professor Rick Hasen Loyola Law School 919 Albany Street Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211 (213)736-1466 - voice (213)380-3769 - fax rick.hasen@lls.edu http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html http://electionlawblog.org