| Subject: Electionlawblog news and commentary 1/2/06 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 1/2/2006, 9:20 AM |
| To: election-law |
Lyle Denniston has this
fascinating post on Scotusblog, which begins: "Should an elected
judge, who accepts large campaign donations, sit on a case that
directly affects the financial or business interests of the donors and
their associates? Put as an ethical question, the answer would seem to
be obvious: No. But the Supreme Court is being asked to rule on that
question as a constitutional issue: does the due process clause create
a duty to recuse in such a situation?"
In this
post, Political Wire links to stories discussing whether the Texas
redistricting cases currently before the Supreme Court could affect the
balance of power in the House of Representatives.
Following up on posts here and here, Foster's
Online offers Secretary
of State Agrees with Scott. It begins: "N.H. Secretary of State
Bill Gardner agrees that ward-3 councilor-elect David Scott can spend
whatever money he wants on his own campaign. While Gardner disagrees
with the landmark 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision, the Secretary said it
is the law of the land and Scott's admitted overspending of the
$1,577.50 limit imposed in Code 137, the city's campaign finance
ordinance, is protected."
BBC offers this report, with the subhead: "A senior Olympic figure has told the BBC that London only won the 2012 Olympics because of a misplaced vote."
-- 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