| Subject: Electionlawblog news and commentary 10/11/05 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 10/11/2005, 9:16 AM |
| To: election-law |
The Sacramento Bee offers this
report, with the subhead: "Backers of redistricting hope to avoid
perception of a GOP power play."
A.P. offers this
report, which begins: "Federal officials have approved new Arizona
election rules requiring voters to show identification at polling
places but allowing those without IDs to cast provisional ballots. The
provisional ballots would be counted only if the voters later produce
identification at an election office. A requirement that voters produce
identification at polling places was a provision of a voter-approved
law that appeared on the state's November ballot as Proposition 200. It
took state officials until last month to work out how it would be
implemented. The U.S. Justice Department approved the procedures Oct. 7
after a review for compliance with the Voting Rights Act, a federal law
intended to protect minorities' voting rights."
Findlaw has posted this
very important column. The authors are Kristen Clarke-Avery and M.
David Gelfand. It includes the following biographical note: "Kristen
Clarke-Avery is a civil rights attorney at the U.S. Department of
Justice. She has handled a number of voting rights cases, redistricting
matters and election-related issues in Louisiana and other parts of the
country. The views expressed in this column are her own and do not
necessarily reflect the policies, positions or views of the Department
of Justice or the United States. She can be contacted at
kclarke@post.harvard.edu. Tragically, M. David Gelfand passed away
recently. He was the Ashton Phelps Chair and Professor of
Constitutional Law at Tulane Law School. He was also the President of
the newly formed From the Lake to the River: The New Orleans Coalition
for Legal Aid & Disaster Relief, which will be providing services
to New Orleans victims of Hurricane Katrina (wherever they are) and
playing a watchdog/oversight role with respect to the federal
government's relief funds and efforts. The website for the Coalition
can be found at FromtheLaketotheRiver.org."
The Washington Post offers this editorial, which begins: "CONSIDER THIS campaign finance scenario: A member of Congress faces a tough reelection race and needs as much financial help as possible. The politician can't legally take money from a corporation or labor union, and the most individuals can give is a few thousand dollars. But the lawmaker goes to a company and suggests another way to help out. He proposes that it pay for his Internet advertising. The campaign's consultants will produce the spots and choose the Web sites; the company need only write the check. And the company's help won't ever show up in campaign finance records."
Bob Bauer reacts
negatively to the editorial: "This conduct is, however, illegal
under existing law: no new regulation of the Internet is necessary to
stop it. The violations—which include but are not limited to a
violation of the prohibition on corporate election-related spending—do
not depend on the use of the Internet. So the Post is calling for
unneeded rules that, failing to solve a real problem, do manage to
equip the state with new powers and a fresh rationale to restrict
Internet politics."
-- 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