| Subject: news of the day 2/25/05 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 2/25/2005, 8:39 AM |
| To: election-law |
The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel offers this report.
In a draft article sent out to law reviews yesterday ("Beyond the
Margin of Litigation: Reforming U.S. Election Administration to Avoid
Electoral Meltdown"), I advocate a package deal on registration reform
that should appeal to many Democrats and Republicans: universal,
national voter registration (conducted by the federal government)
coupled with a voter id program---voters would not need to bring the
ids to the polls, but could instead present biometric information such
as a thumb print. Such a program stands to maximize voter turnout and
minimize the potential for voter fraud. (I also advocate a change to
nonpartisan election administration and a change in the timing of court
review of election challenges.) I'll talk more about these proposals on
the blog and elsewhere in coming weeks.
A
new Field poll shows pretty lukewarm support for Gov. Schwarzengger's
proposal to change California's redistricting plan to redistricting by
commission, especially at this early point. (See here.)
Usually ballot measures need to poll higher early in order to survive
later attacks, but it might be different with Schwarzenegger backing.
Dan Weintraub weighs in on the poll here
and here
(where he defends the notion that competitive districts lead to the
election of moderates). John Marelius reports
on party squabbling over the proposal, and Dan Walters defends
the proposal, with a column entitled "Only the unreasonable can oppose
a revamp of redistricting."
Laurence Gold has written this
analysis of the proposed 527 legislation, available at OMB Watch.
Marvin Ammori has posted
"Shadow Government: Private Regulation, Free Speech, and Lessons from
the Sinclair Blogstorm" on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
The paper also addresses some normative implications of these campaigns, especially when aimed at private speech. It concludes that internet-enabled private speech regulation can often undermine First Amendment values. Private speech regulation, however, is pervasive and often necessary. It always undermines some First Amendment values at the expense of other values. The question for policy-makers and judges is therefore which forms of private speech regulation are more or less desirable, or have more or less constitutional protection.
The paper's primary case study centers on the online coalition that coalesced and dissolved around the acts of Sinclair Broadcasting Group less than a month before the 2004 presidential election. The campaign attempted to punish a private party; other campaigns in the following weeks attempted to aid private parties. All such campaigns will become more common. This paper attempts an analysis of their mechanisms and possible effects."
-- 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