| Subject: resend of Electionlawblog news and commentary 11/22/05 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 11/22/2005, 4:32 PM |
| To: election-law |
The Hill offers this
report, which begins: "Rep. Tom DeLay's (R-Texas) public defense to
the charge that he and two aides illegally funneled corporate campaign
contributions through national party committees to state campaigns has
been that everyone does it. A new report may support the thrust of
DeLay's argument while acknowledging that not every state prohibits
corporations from contributing to state campaigns, as Texas does." In a
somewhat related commentary, Brad Smith has written this Wall
Street Journal oped. "Why Single Out Tom DeLay?" (paid
subscription required, but excerpts here).
The NY Times offers this
report, which begins: "Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said Monday
that if elected governor he will end a practice that many say is at the
root of Albany's dysfunctional government: the power of state lawmakers
to draw legislative districts so that incumbents are perennially
re-elected. Mr. Spitzer, a Democrat, called the current system 'a
classic conflict of interest' and said that as governor he would push
for a nonpartisan commission to draw district lines. If the Legislature
did not agree to such a change, he pledged that he would veto the next
set of district lines established unless the boundaries were
'reflective of democracy, not incumbent protection.'"
The Macon Telegraph offers this
editorial, which begins: "It's not particularly surprising -
actually, it was predictable - that Georgia's Republicans would oppose
renewal of the Voting Rights Act even though that opposition doesn't
have a snowball's chance in a very hot place of succeeding. Even
President Bush and his attorney general, as well as Republican and
Democratic congressional leaders, support renewal the act, which is to
expire in 2007, for another 25 years. Section 5 of that act, mandating
federal oversight and preclearance of voting laws adopted in Southern
states, almost certainly will be approved."
Lawrence Norden and Jeremy Creelan of the Brennan Center have
written this
NY Daily News oped, which begins: "New York is about to
purchase new voting machines. Unfortunately, the New York State Board
of Elections has taken the position that the state may only choose from
among the most expensive, error-prone and inaccessible machines
available."
I have always been in favor of them when both sides agree or the law
already provides, out of the belief that that it is cheaper to do so
when the margin of error exceeds the margin of victory. But one New
York town disagrees.
-- 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