| Subject: Electionlawblog news and commentary 10/31/05 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 10/31/2005, 9:29 AM |
| To: election-law |
As I predicted, President Bush has nominated a strong conservative to replace the failed nomination of Harriet Miers. We now have the battle that liberal and conservative interest groups have been anticipating ever since President Bush promised a Supreme Court nominee in the Scalia-Thomas mold.
It all comes down now to the 14 Senators who made a deal to prevent the triggering of the "nuclear option" in the Senate, and the politics of abortion. This is a high stakes game for those 14 Senators. Risk the wrath of the right (if you are a moderate Democrat) or the wrath of the left (if you are a moderate Republican).
I am ready to make my next prediction: Judge Alito will not be
confirmed, because Democrats will threaten to use the filibuster for a
nominee they will strongly paint as anti-choice. Moderate Republicans,
such as Olympia Snowe, won't vote to trigger the nuclear option, and
Judge Alito will not get a vote on the floor of the Senate. My level of
confidence in this prediction: not high. With the stakes this high, the
triggering of the nuclear option is very much in play, and the decline
of the Senate as a deliberative institution is clearly in sight. (For
background on how the nuclear option will change the nature of the
Senate, see my Roll
Call oped from April 25).
Richard Winger notes here
Judge Alito's decision in Council of Alternative Political Parties v
Hooks.
The Los Angeles Times offers this
very interesting report, which begins: "LIVERMORE, Calif. — A
housing developer here in the Bay Area's bastion of slow growth is on
track to spend nearly $68 per registered voter to pass a ballot measure
that would expand the city's boundaries and add 2,450 new homes along
one of Northern California's most congested highways. By the time
election day dawns Nov. 8, Pardee Homes is expected to have spent more
than $3 million to convince just 43,598 registered voters that the
company should be allowed to develop 1,400 acres of golden grassland
surrounded by rolling hills off busy Interstate 580."
Howard Bashman has collected coverage and a link to the court's
order here.
I would not read anything on the merits into the court's decision to
keep the stay in place pending the hearing on the preliminary
injunction appeal.
Trevor Potter has this Roll
Call oped (paid subscription required (or here,
without a subscription). A snippet: "These reform opponents presumably
believe it would serve their interests if the Internet became an outlet
for the same soft money that virtually drowned out the modest
contributions of average citizens in the 1980s and 1990s, and that
Congress banned in 2002. So they are trying to argue that a movement is
afoot to 'regulate grass-roots activity' in order to stop any
regulation of the way state parties, corporations and unions finance
federal political activities that take place online. If they are
successful, they will have opened an Internet loophole through which
soft money can once again flow freely."
Roll Call offers this
report (paid subscription required), which begins: "An indictment
was handed down last week in a case that could send an individual to
jail for the first time under the stepped-up penalties for violations
under the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Tom Noe, a 'Pioneer' for
President Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign, was charged last week
with illegally funneling $45,400 to Bush’s re-election campaign by
using two dozen people as “conduits†for illegal contributions."
The Supreme Court's order list makes no mention of these cases, meaning that they will most likely be relisted for a future conference.
-- 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