| Subject: news of the day 4/26/05 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 4/26/2005, 7:07 AM |
| To: election-law |
Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle offers this Roll
Call oped (paid subscription required).
The San Francisco Chronicle offers this
report,
which begins: "A trade group representing the pharmaceutical industry
has agreed to drop its backing for a ballot initiative focusing on
union political contributions, in the hope that it can persuade unions
to drop a measure focusing on drug prices."
The Seattle Times offers this
report,
which begins: "In his first questioning under oath about the
governor's election, King County Elections Director Dean Logan revealed
additional errors in the handling of ballots and acknowledged that the
county did not follow recommendations by its elections-oversight
committee that were designed to avoid some of those very mistakes.
Logan revealed the mishandling of 125 provisional ballots in addition
to 660 disclosed earlier. He also said three absentee ballots had been
found in counting machines in a discovery never made public."
See this
report
from Florida, with the subhead: "The Republican-controlled Florida
House today may greatly increase campaign spending limits for
candidates who accept public financing, which would undo a past
overhaul."
See this
report
from Atlanta, which begins: "Saying the protections of the 1965 Voting
Rights Act could be in jeopardy, the Rev. Jesse Jackson announced plans
for a 'massive' protest march in Atlanta on the anniversary of the
law's signing. Jackson said the Aug. 6 event will feature a march from
the tomb of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. to Atlanta's Centennial
Olympic Park and is inspired by concerns that President Bush will seek
to alter the 40-year-old law that protects voting rights among
minorities and others."
Responding to my oped from
yesterday, Larry Solum weighs in here.
I agree with Larry that when a filibuster continues to the end of a
term it imposes a de facto supermajority requirement. I just don't see
the constitutional problem: why is this not just an instance of
the Senate withholding consent? As a matter of "ideal theory," why not
let the political process in the Senate---itself a non-majoritarian
institution--determine who gets an up or down vote?
Terry Neal's Washington Post "Talking Points" column
discusses recent conspiracy theories about the 2004 election. Thanks to
Doug Chapin for the pointer.
-- Rick Hasen William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law Loyola Law School 919 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