| Subject: Electionlawblog news and commentary 11/11/2005 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 11/11/2005, 9:03 AM |
| To: election-law |
This
news has been getting some attention in Southern California. I
heard Shaun
Bowler on the radio yesterday attributing the felon's election to
the ballot order effect----the felon was listed first.
You can find information about this important set edited by Jack
Chin and Lori Wagner here.
See this
news from New Hampshire, which begins: City officials plan no
action against newly elected councilor David Scott, who violated
campaign rules by overspending during his race for the City Council.
But they indicated that if a resident files a complaint the city will
investigate it. A subsequent court decision could disqualify the
defendant and allow for fines." Another snippet: "On election day,
Scott said he was aware of the spending limits, but feels they do not
apply as the Constitution of the United States gives him the right to
spend as much as he wants to promote himself. According to the
documents he filed, Scott only received $1,095 from others, but
contributed $626 of his own money."
AP offers this
report, which begins: "A law that let the secretary of state refuse
a candidate's request to quit the ballot is unconstitutional, the
Florida Supreme Court said Thursday although the Legislature earlier
this year had repealed the statute."
The Michigan Daily offers this
report.
See this
post by Heather Gerken and Chris Elmendorf on the failure of
redistricting measures in California and Ohio. I'll be offering my own
take on Ohio and California soon.
AP offers this
report, which begins: "Election boards in some Ohio counties are
irate and embarrassed by vote-counting delays that held up results for
hours, and state officials said Thursday they will try to find out what
went wrong. Machine problems were blamed in some counties, lack of
training in others as nearly half of Ohio's 88 counties used touch
screen or optical scan systems for the first time."
The California Supreme Court has set
December 7 as the day to hear oral argument in the Prop. 77 case,
raising the question of the propriety of pre-election review of
initiatives. This even though Prop. 77 went down to defeat on Tuesday.
I think this is a very good development from the point of view of
clarity of the law. As I argued in this oped,
the state of the law as it is now is a mess.
This
draft advisory opinion, if adopted, would go a long way toward
exempting a number of blogs from many campaign finance regulations.
(Via Bob
Bauer). The Skeptic weighs
in too. In related news, bloggers Kos and Krempasky (Daily Kos and
Redstate, respectively, has written this letter
opposing the Shays-Meehan internet campaign finance bill. UPDATE:
Shays-Meehan respond.
Ed Still has filed a case attacking Alabama's felon
disenfranchisement administration. For details, see here.
The following announcement arrived via e-mail:
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
9:30 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.
The Brookings Institution
Falk Auditorium
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC
On Tuesday, November 8, voters in California and Ohio rejected
state constitutional amendments that would reform the process for
redrawing congressional and legislative districts. Opponents of the
measures cheered the prevention of a "partisan power grab," while
supporters lamented their failure to de-politicize the redistricting
process.
Though the results from the Ohio and California initiatives are settled, the issue of redistricting remains alive and controversial. As political polarization increases and electoral competition decreases, the question of how legislative district boundaries are drawn will only grow more pressing.
Three of the country's leading experts on redistricting will discuss the initiatives and their impact on the future of redistricting reform. Brookings Senior Fellow Thomas Mann will moderate the discussion with Bruce E. Cain, the Robson Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley, and director of its Institute of Governmental Studies, and Michael P. McDonald, assistant professor of government and politics at George Mason University and a Brookings visiting fellow. Mann, Cain, and McDonald are also contributors to Party Lines: Competition, Partisanship, and Congressional Redistricting (Brookings 2005).
-- Rick Hasen William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law Loyola Law School 919 South Albany Street Los Angeles, CA 90015-0019 (213)736-1466 - voice (213)380-3769 - fax rick.hasen@lls.edu http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html http://electionlawblog.org