"BROAD COALITION URGES US SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW CAMPAIGN SPENDING LIMITS CASE"

NVRI has posted this press release on the Vermont spending limits case. It begins: "- A broad coalition of United States Senators, state attorneys general, former US Senators Bill Bradley and Alan Simpson, and others filed a series of legal briefs today urging the United States Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of Vermont's limits on campaign spending. The filings set the stage for the nation's highest court to revisit its 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo, which struck down congressional campaign spending limits on First Amendment grounds." The news release promises that the briefs supporting cert. filed in the Supreme Court will be posted online. I'll provide a link when they are posted.
It will be interesting to see if the Court takes any actions on these petitions before its summer recess. I've noted earlier that I think a cert. grant is very likely, except that there's a procedural wrinkle in the case.

"It's a crime to stop felons from voting"

Sheryl McCarthy offers this column in Newsday on the pending en banc rehearing in Muntaqim v. Coombe, a felon disenfranchisment case being heard by the Second Circuit.

Bauer on Smith's Departure

See here. See also this A.P. report these comments at Red State, and this C|NET News report.

"FEC Could Face Massive Turnover at the Top"

Roll Call offers this report (paid subscription required).

"Wal-Mart Urges Hill to Act on VRA"

Roll Call offers this very interesting report (paid subscription required). A snippet:

A White House spokesman said he was unfamiliar with the Wal-Mart letter and referred comments about voting rights to a Jan. 31, 2005, transcript in which Scott McClellan told reporters the “president is firmly committed to protecting the voting rights of all Americans.” In the same statement, McClellan added that “the president said that he would take a look at” the reauthorization.

The article is very informative, except it describes the reauthorization as "includ[ing] ones that guarantee polling assistance for non-English speakers." It makes no mention of the most important (and controversial) provision up for renewal: preclearance of voting changes by covered jurisdictions. UPDATE: The Hill offers this report. Like the first report, this report doesn't seem to recognize what the VRA provisions actually do. From the report: "The act is universally beloved by the civil-rights community and a point of pride for black lawmakers. It ensures that no disenfranchisement method can be used to prohibit blacks from exercising their right to vote, and its renewal before the 2007 expiration is a crucial priority for the CBC."

"King County elections superintendent takes new county job"

A.P. offers this report, which begins: "King County's election superintendent is leaving his post following a court challenge of November election results that revealed problems with the voting process in the state's most populous county. Bill Huennekens will step down as superintendent effective July 11, the county said in a statement today. He's been reassigned to supervise enactment of recent federal voting rules, which require installation of handicapped-accessible balloting equipment at more than 500 county polling sites."

Toner Op-ed

Here is the text of the Roll Call oped by FEC Commissioner Michael Toner that I linked to earlier (reprinted with permission):

Pass Pence-Wynn So We Can Fix Coordinated Expenditures

By Michael E. Toner
Special to Roll Call

June 15, 2005

Last week the House Administration Committee approved a campaign finance bill sponsored by Reps. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and Albert Wynn (D-Md.) that would make significant changes to the nation’s campaign finance laws. The House is expected to vote on the Pence-Wynn bill before the August recess.

Potentially the most significant component of the Pence-Wynn bill is a proposal to abolish the limits that apply to political-party spending coordinated with federal candidates. Current law severely restricts such party spending, known as coordinated expenditures, on behalf of candidates.

The coordinated-expenditure limits do not prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption and serve no rational purpose in today’s campaign finance system. Regardless of what else Congress decides to do in the campaign finance area, it should repeal the coordinated expenditure limits and allow the parties to spend as much money as they want on behalf of, and in full consultation with, their candidates.

[entry continued after the jump] Continue reading "Toner Op-ed"

-- 
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