| Subject: news of the day 2/15/05 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 2/15/2005, 8:32 AM |
| To: election-law |
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland offers this
oped in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
See this
Roll Call report (paid subscription required).
Roll Call offers this
report
(paid subscription required), which begins: "An independent audit of
the Federal Election Commission’s 2004 financial statements turned up
'material weaknesses' in the areas of financial reporting and
information technology, according to the accounting firm that performed
the review, Clifton Gunderson LLP."
See here.
BNA reports (paid subscription required) that the Second Circuit has denied en banc review in Landell v. Vermont Public Interest Research Group. A three-judge panel had held that Vermont's mandatory spending limits in campaigns could be justified by a compelling interest in protecting the time of elected officials as well as to prevent corruption and its appearance, putting it in apparent direct conflict with the Supreme Court's 1976 opinion in Buckley v. Valeo. The Supreme Court recently denied cert in a case involving the Albuquerque spending limit law (Homans). In that case, the 10th Circuit held spending limits unconstitutional, and I predicted a denial there. Here, the unprecedented decision to hold such limits constitutional certainly will attract at least some of the Justices to hearing the case.
As I noted here, the main hurdle for review of Landell is procedural: the case is being remanded to the district court to see if Vermont can actually prove that its law is supported by the compelling interests it asserts. The Court could choose to wait to see what happens below, perhaps with the thought that upon further review the spending limits issue will go away. But that would still leave the existing Second Circuit opinion holding that spending limits may be justified in some cases by compelling interests.
A.P. offers this
report. The Caltech/MIT report referred to is here.
USA Today offers this
report,
which begins: "Repairs to the nation's voting system, already long
overdue, are likely to remain uncompleted by the 2006 congressional
elections, top state election officials warn."
This Saturday, the University of Miami Law Review is having an
election law symposium. Here is the schedule:
Registration & Breakfast 8:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.
Opening Remarks - 9:00 a.m. - 9:15 a.m.
I. Rationalizing Election Law
9:15 am - 10:30 am
Election law encompasses multiple topics addressed by discrete statutes
and distinct Constitutional claims raised by candidates, parties,
interest groups, contributors. The roles of voters, who represents
these interests, and how the claims of voters relate to claims of other
parties have not figured prominently in election law jurisprudence.
What would election law jurisprudence relating to campaign finance and
to election administration look like if voters were more central to the
deliberations of Congress, the courts, and the FEC?
Scott Thomas, Chairman, Federal Election Commission
Frances R. Hill, Professor of Law, University of Miami School of
Law
Daniel Hays Lowenstein, Professor of Law, University of California at
Los Angeles Law School
Coffee Break -
10:30 a.m.11:00 a.m.
II. The Contested Jurisprudence of McConnell v. FEC
11:00 am - 12:45 pm
What did the Court decide and why has this opinion become so controversial? Is the Court developing an innovative concept of democracy? Or, is the controversy largely tactical? What were the consequences of this case for the 2004 election? What were the implications of the 2004 election for the continuing controversy over McConnell?
Robert F. Bauer, Perkins Coie, Washington, D.C
Benjamin L. Ginsberg. Patton Boggs, Washington, D.C.
Trevor Potter, Caplin & Drysdale and the Campaign Legal Center, Washington, D.C.
Daniel Ortiz, Professor of Law, University of Virginia Law School
LUNCH - 12:45 P.M. - 2:00 P.M.
III. One View from the FEC
2:00 pm - 2:45 pm
Bradley Smith, Commissioner and former Chair, Federal Election Commission
Is McConnell consistent with the Constitution? What has been the Federal Election Commissionís response to McConnell? On what fundamental principles should the FEC base its work going forward?
IV. Organizing Elections: Issues in Election Administration
Both panels address issues of federalism and balance of powers. Is
there a general jurisprudential theory in these areas? Should there be?
A. Issues in Defining Congressional Districts
2:45 pm ñ 4:15 pm
Districting and apportionment issue have been addressed repeatedly by
the courts since the Supreme Court decided Baker v. Carr. Nevertheless,
new issues continue to arise. Experiences in Texas and Colorado raise
issues of how frequently a state legislature may redistrict and what
limits, if any, federal courts may place on the authority of states.
Paul M. Smith, Jenner & Block, Washington, D.C.
Terrence Anderson, Professor of Law, University of Miami School
of Law
Miguel A. De Grandy, Miguel De Grandy, P.A., Coral Gables, Florida
B. Issues relating to Voting Procedures and Voter Protection
4:15 pm ñ 5:15 pm
New technologies and the requirements in the Help America Vote Act that
older technologies be replaced have raise important issues of votersí
rights to have their votes counted. How do current controversies
compare with historic controversies over the integrity of voting? What
are the claims in this area? What is the standard for election
integrity? What role should legislatures and courts place in these
controversies? What role should state and the federal government play?
Are the appropriate claims civil or criminal?
Benedict R. Kuehne, Sale & Kuehne, Miami, Florida
Martha Mahone, Professor of Law, University of Miami School of Law
V. Open Question Time
Opportunity for audience to ask any questions of any panelist
-- 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