"No decision made by Gallegly to rescind retirement"

So reports the Ventura County Star.

"House Leaders Plan to Support Measure Restricting Lobbying"

The New York Times offers this report. See also this report in The Hill. Both reports indicate that House Republicans are considering packaging 527 reform with the lobbying bill. I'll have more to say about this soon.

"State Legislatures: The Race for Redistricting Starts Now"

CQPolitics offers this post.

"Voting Technology: Beyond HAVA, Beyond Paper"

Dan Tokaji has written this very important commentary for the Moritz election law site. It begins: "2006 is turning out to be a big year on the voting technology front. That's primarily because of some important deadlines in the Help America Vote Act of 2002 ("HAVA"), requiring disability-accessible voting equipment and the replacement of punch-card and lever machines. A number of states failed to prepare adequately for these deadlines, forcing a rush to get new technology in place in time for this year's elections. In other states, the fierce debate over the security of electronic machines – and, more specifically, the push to require contemporaneous paper records of electronically-cast votes – has impeded conversion to new technology. The end result is that, contrary to what Congress intended in 2002, the transformation of the United States' voting equipment is nowhere near complete as of early 2006. The big question is how to move forward, given this messy state of affairs."

"Ethics Panel Endorses Public Funding of City Campaigns"

The Los Angeles Times offers this report.

"The Internet Campaign Loophole"

The New York Times offers this editorial. For more details on the legislative battle, see House Leaders Mull Strategy to Bring Online Politics Measure Up for Floor Vote from BNA (paid subscription required).

"Those who vote by mail may need to show ID, too"

The Arizona Daily Star offers this report.

"Will Scalia Blow the Whistle on This Constitutional Farce?"

Norm Ornstein offers this Roll Call oped (free access). A snippet: "To those unfamiliar with the issue and controversy, the House and Senate passed a major budget bill by the narrowest of margins in both chambers, including a tie-breaking vote in the Senate case by Vice President Cheney, but it turned out that the bill passed the House and Senate in different forms. This was not simply a transcription error, a misplaced comma or a misspelled word--something that would be plenty serious--but a $2 billion discrepancy that arose over a last-minute compromise between the two chambers over the time allowed for the rental of medical equipment for Medicare patients. After the House had passed its version and the discrepancy became known, Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) unilaterally changed the House bill to match the Senate’s and then sent it on to President Bush, which he signed to great fanfare." The article also mentions HR 1606 and 4900, the competing internet campaign finance bills.

"Foes of election have their say"

The Times-Picayune offers this report, which begins: "Opponents of New Orleans' election next month stepped up their public relations campaign Tuesday but stopped short of pledging further court action, arguing that the state of Louisiana is deliberately moving to deprive displaced black residents of their right to vote."

"GARY L. BLEDSOE: Blacks Must Reach Out to Supreme Court Justice Kennedy"

See this commentary in the Chicago Defender. A snippet: "During the arguments regarding Texas Congressional redistricting plan the other day, it was patently apparent how the justices are now staked out. Justice Kennedy, however, at least wanted answers to important questions regarding minority voting rights. Five Justices expressed concern over the districts complained of by MALDEF and LULAC and/or the Texas NAACP. However, all five of those who expressed concern must vote to disapprove the Texas Congressional plan before justice on any level can be achieved. This is a 100 percent vote out of those who did not have their minds made up from the beginning of the case. To put this in perspective, this is like running for political office and starting out with 49 percent of the voters already having case votes against you. Of course, this means you will have to get all of the remaining votes, not too small a task."

"Comments Supporting H.R. 4900 and/or Opposing H.R. 1606, Alternative"

This post appears on the Democracy 21 website.

Estoppel Argument Possible for Gallegly?

The Ventura County Star reports:

It turned out the law prevented Gallegly from withdrawing, and his name will appear on the ballot despite his desire to retire.

While contemplating his decision, Gallegly received incorrect advice from Ventura County Clerk-Recorder Phillip Schmit, who told Gallegly's legal adviser, former District Attorney Mike Bradbury, that Gallegly would in fact be able to withdraw.

"You make decisions and, hopefully, they're informed decisions," Gallegly said. "I take responsibility for making the decision based on my understanding of the law that came from a person in authority."

Schmit acknowledged he gave incorrect information to Bradbury in a phone conversation about 11:30 Friday morning.

"That was the original statement that, yes, he could withdraw," Schmit said. "It was not the proper answer."

After double-checking the law, however, Schmit left a voice-mail message on Bradbury's phone about an hour later, informing him of the error.

Gallegly said he did not receive the message until after he had issued a news release and met with Star Editor Joe Howry to announce his decision to retire.

Gallegly and Bradbury were also under the impression that if the incumbent withdrew his nomination papers, other candidates would have an additional five days to come forward. That is the case with state and local offices, but not for members of Congress.

One of the reasons Gallegly believed such an extension would be granted is that when he initially ran for Congress, in 1986, a candidate who missed the filing period, Thomas La Porte, was granted an extension by a Ventura County Superior Court judge.

In that case, the extension was granted because La Porte had been told by a former county clerk that he would have additional time to file.

The case, however, did not set a precedent because of the unusual circumstance that La Porte had been given faulty information.

That decision was based on the legal concept of estoppel. "It's the concept in law that the government is prevented from enforcing the law because it's their mistake," said Lance Olson, an attorney for the state Democratic Party and one of California's leading experts on election law.

It doesn't look like Gallegly would have a good estoppel argument, because he had already filed his nomination papers before he was given any incorrect legal advice by an elections official.

-- 
Rick Hasen
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA  90015-0019
(213)736-1466 - voice
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org