| Subject: Electionlawblog news and commentary 2/21/06 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 2/21/2006, 7:17 AM |
| To: election-law |
Some time today you should find here a discussion of
the Supreme Court's Vermont spending limits case and Texas
redistricting case, both of which will be argued next week.
Participating in the rountable are Ned Foley, Dan Lowenstein, Rick
Pildes, Brad Smith, and me. I have seen some of the upcoming exchanges
and this will be an interesting and intense debate.
Richard Briffault and James C. Miller have begun debating this
question for Legal Affairs Debate Club.
FEC Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky has written this Roll
Call oped (paid subscription required). A snippet: "However, if
Congress decides that there is no corruption justifying applying the
same restrictions to Indian tribes that everyone else has to live with,
perhaps Congress should also question why others have those
restrictions. Only Congress can correct this statutory glitch: The FEC
does not have the ability to change the statutory provisions that
created this loophole. Congress could have fixed this in 2002 when it
passed the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law that amended FECA but
chose not to. Will it finally remedy this problem now?"
Roll Call offers this
report (paid subscription required), which begins: "Organizers of
the independent political groups known as 527s are quietly fanning out
across Capitol Hill, trying to convince lawmakers to exclude from any
lobbying reform package new rules to severely limit their activities."
The NY Times offers this
report, which begins: "The Department of Justice should postpone
coming elections in New Orleans until displaced voters have been
located, N.A.A.C.P. officials said Saturday."
A.P. offers this
report, which begins: "Unfair tactics and confusing rules still
make it tough for many minorities to cast election ballots, and the
barriers are so common that the federal safeguards for voters must be
renewed, a detailed new report from a civil rights group says.
'Protecting Minority Voters: The Voting Rights Act, 1982-2005' pulls
together research and testimony from voters around the country to urge
lawmakers to renew the parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that will
expire in August 2007." The report should be posted here later today.
See this
story in U.S. News and World Report.
Swing State Project has posted this
report on a controversy over ballot acess for the OH-06
congressional district. Thanks to Jeff Hauser for the link.
BNA Money and Politics Report offers this story.
A few snippets from this very important report: "Instead of
establishing a schedule to resolve the case within weeks, as requested
by challenger WRTL, the court said it would take until April 10 to
decide whether to allow discovery and development of a further factual
record in the case. The ruling was announced from the bench by U.S.
District Judge Richard Leon, one of three judges on a special panel of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The announcement
followed a status hearing in the case." "Meanwhile, attorneys for the
AFL-CIO, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and three other organizations
filed a petition with the FEC Feb. 16 asking that the commission try to
resolve the issue of whether there should be an exception to BCRA's
electioneering communication rules for grass roots lobbying
messages...FEC Chairman Michael Toner quickly responded to the
rulemaking petition, telling BNA in a telephone interview Feb. 17 that
the petition "raises issues of enormous importance which I believe the
commission should decide as soon as possible.'"
The Washington Post offers this
editorial, which begins: "AFTER DAWDLING for a good two years and
defending a certifiably untrustworthy voting process in Maryland, Gov.
Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) announced last week that he, too, has lost
confidence in the state's ability to conduct fair and secure elections
this fall. A curiously tardy call, Governor, but welcome aboard: Time
is short, but now an all-out effort to clean up the system before the
elections can and should begin." See also this
report in the Palm Beach Post.
The following announcement arrived via e-mail:
Presents a Panel Discussion:
From Wisconsin to Vermont: Is There a First Amendment Limit to
Campaign Finance Regulation?
The Supreme Court's docket this Term provides an opportunity for the
Court to address the limits of campaign fnance reform, especially
contemporary efforts to restrict the political activity of independent
"outside groups." In one case, Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, it will
face squarely the issue of how the special provisions that restrict
corporate electioneering should apply to grassroots lobbying on issues.
In a case out of Vermont, the Court will consider whether states may
place caps on spending and restrict the independent expenditures of
other groups and individuals. Our panel will discuss to what degree the
First Amendment remains an impediment to campaign finance restrictions
and a protector of political speech, and how much deference Congress
and legislatures should receive in this area.
Confirmed participants include:
* Mr. Jan W. Baran, Wiley Rein & Fielding
* Prof. Jamin B. Raskin, American University, Washington College of Law
* Hon. Bradley A. Smith, Capital University Law School and Former
Commissioner, Federal Election Commission
* Hon. Scott E. Thomas, Former Commissioner, Federal Election Commission
* Mr. Erik S. Jaffe, Law Offices of Erik S. Jaffe
Date: Thursday, February 23, 2006
Time: 12:00 noon – 2:00 p.m.
Location: The National Press Club
529 14th St., N.W., 13th Floor
Washington, D.C.
Cost: $20. Lunch will be served.
Please visit www.fed-soc.org/events/wisconsin/promo.htm for updates and to register for this event. Please call 202-822-8138 with any questions
-- 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