| Subject: Electionlawblog news and commentary 10/10/05 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 10/10/2005, 8:27 AM |
| To: election-law |
The Denver Post offers this report, with
the subhead: "As more groups win court battles and find ways to skirt
campaign-finance rules, some are considering more regulations."
I ask this question genuinely, not rhetorically. The Los Angeles
Times featured Prop.
75 Worries Union Leaders today, with the subhead "Many in the rank
and file could support the measure, which would limit use of members'
dues. Opponents have been slow to rally." It comes along with this
George Skelton column chronicling worries among Democrats that
their supporters won't show up to vote in the special election.
But Allison Hayward links
to Prop.
75 loophole limits its impact in the Sacramento Bee,
pointing out that Prop. 75 apparently covers only mandating dues to pay
for express advocacy. So, if there is an issue advocacy "loophole," how
much will union power be curtailed?
Spencer Overton has this
interesting post on Blackprof.com, which I have added to my
blogroll.
The ACLU has filed for a preliminary injunction in the case.
Documents and the press release can be found here.
Kieran Williams writes:
The decision upholds an earlier panel judgement that disenfranchisement is permissible only if there is a clear, direct connection to the crime for which the prisoner was convicted (such as electoral fraud or abuse of office), and should be left to judicial discretion as an aspect of sentencing. It will thus force a dozen European states to move to the narrowly tailored disenfranchisement found in countries such as Germany.
-- Rick Hasen William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law 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