Will the Remand in WRTL Be Expedited, Putting the Case Back Before the Supreme Court (at least on a Motion Related to a Preliminary Injunction) This Term?

The plaintiffs in WRTL have asked for expedited review of the case on remand to a special three-judge court in Washington D.C. From the press release:

Wisconsin Right to Life has asked the District of Columbia District Court to expedite its case in WRTL v. FEC. This court had earlier dismissed the case on the basis that the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC had precluded all lawsuits based on the application of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. The Supreme Court on January 23 removed this obstacle by unanimously deciding that as-applied challenges to McCain-Feingold are valid. The case was remanded back to the District Court.

"Throughout 2006, there are 30 day blackout periods before each state’s federal primary elections beginning with the Texas primary on March 7," stated Barbara Lyons, Executive Director of Wisconsin Right to Life. “Congress is in session throughout most of this year, meaning that the creation of a grassroots lobbying exception which we have requested would benefit groups that lobby across the country. We have made the District Court aware of this scenario."

BNA reports (paid subscription required) that the FEC is resisting the effort to expedite. "The FEC is expected to respond formally with its own motion by Feb. 7, according to agency spokesman Ian Stirton. It is not known yet whether the FEC will propose its own schedule for proceeding with the case."

More Fallout from Padilla v. Lever in Monterey County

See this report from the Salinas Californian, which begins: "After hearing complaints that backers of the general plan initiative violated voters' rights, Monterey County supervisors Tuesday postponed deciding whether to place it on the June ballot. Supervisors, after certifying that 12,500 valid signatures had been collected for the ballot measure, opted instead to perform further studies of the initiative's possible impacts on the county - and whether the measure can be thrown out altogether. A key issue is whether Spanish-speaking voters' rights were violated because signature-gatherers presented ballot information solely in English." See also this post on Flashreport. It is time for the Ninth Circuit to grant rehearing en banc in the Padilla case to clear up all this uncertainty.

Mark Posner White Paper on Politics at the DOJ and Section 5 Preclearance

Mark Posner has written a very important White Paper, The Politicization of Justice Department Decisionmaking Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act: Is it a Problem and What Should Congress Do?. ACSblog describes it as follows:

The Constitution in the 21st Century Project Distributes White Paper on "The Politicization of Justice Department Decisionmaking Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act"

ACS is pleased to distribute an analysis by Mark A. Posner, examining recent administration by the Justice Department of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Mr. Posner served as an attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice from 1980 to 2003, and assisted in supervising the Division’s reviews of Section 5 preclearance submissions from the mid-1980s to 1995. He currently serves as Adjunct Professor of Law at American University’s Washington College of Law and the University of Maryland School of Law.

Over the next year, Congress is expected to decide whether to renew Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, one of the most effective civil rights protections ever enacted. Section 5, which will expire in August 2007 unless renewed, requires particular states and localities to obtain federal approval (“preclearance”) whenever they enact or seek to administer a change in any aspect of their election law or procedure. Recent reports suggest that some significant precelarance decisions have been driven by partisan political interests, rather than good faith application of the law to the facts. In his white paper, "The Politicization of Justice Department Decisionmaking Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act: Is it a Problem and What Should Congress Do?," Mark Posner takes a hard look at the politicization question and ways Congress can address this concern in renewing Section 5 of the Voting Rights Acts.

"N.J. and D.C."

Roll Call offers this editorial (paid subscription required). It begins:

New Jersey Gov. John Corzine (D) has decreed that no special election will be held until November to fill the House seat vacated by the man he named his successor in the Senate, Bob Menendez (D). This will leave roughly 700,000 residents in the 13th district without representation for nine months. Anyone who is offended by this-- as we are--should also remember that this is the plight of the 600,000 citizens of the District of Columbia. And Washington, D.C., has been living with its fate for a lot longer than nine months.

Lobbying Reform Update

USA Today offers Tribes' political giving targeted (along with Tribes' special status a product of law and history. Norm Ornstein writes Santorum's Denials on K Street Project Don't Ring True (from Roll Call, but available through AEI without a subscription). The Washington Post offers Contacts with Lobbyists Curbed; Senate Groups From Both Parties Drop Regular Meetings.

Justice Alito and Election Law

This New York Times article and this Wall St. Journal article (free access) discuss how Justice Alito's replacement of Justice O'Connor may affect important Supreme Court cases, including those dealing with election law.

"Coming this fall: Voters must show ID at polls"

The Columbus Dispatch offers this report.

"Gov.'s Campaign Is in Debt"

The Los Angeles Times offers this report. A snippet: "Meanwhile, the reports show that Schwarzenegger paid his chief of staff, Susan Kennedy, $25,000 on Dec. 5 from his campaign account. At the time, she had not yet joined the governor's staff, and still was a member of the California Public Utilities Commission — the state's chief regulator of utilities, telephone companies and private water companies."

-- 
Rick Hasen
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org