| Subject: Electionlawblog news and commentary 11/14/05 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 11/14/2005, 8:44 AM |
| To: election-law |
A.P. offers this
report, which begins: "An Ohio election-law fight - five years
running - illustrates the evolving state of campaign finance amid new
federal laws and the ongoing realignment of the U.S. Supreme Court, a
professor who teaches election law says. The Ohio Elections Commission
made two rulings on Thursday that, combined, may have changed the
status of issue advocacy groups that have not had to adhere to state
election laws because they do not promote the election or defeat of a
specific candidate."
Today the newspaper offers two editorials, Redistricting
Defeats and No
Recess (about FEC appointments). Bob Bauer comments
on the both editorials, and Allison Hayward focuses
on the FEC editorial.
Yesterday in the Post, Juliet Eilperin had this
commentary, "You Can't Have a Great Election Without Any Races."
So reports Lyle Denniston here.
The Court did so even in the face of a circuit split on the issue. As I
noted here,
"The liberals on the Court could vote against cert. in this case, out
of fear of creating a national precedent that would narrow the reach of
section 2. A cert. denial at least keeps the Ninth Circuit's case alive
for now."
UPDATE: Here
is a Reuter's story. And there was no ruling again today in the Texas
redistricting cases.
Th e New York Times offers this
report. A snippet: "Even the most optimistic Democrat has to
wonder, deep down, whether big, 1994-style change is possible in the
current House. Redistricting and other incumbent protections have
created a Republican fortress in recent years, with so little turnover
that even the party's relatively narrow majority is very hard to crack.
"
-- 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