| Subject: Re: Electionlawblog news and commentary 3/24/06 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 3/24/2006, 11:43 AM |
| To: "Even, Jeff (ATG)" <JeffE@ATG.WA.GOV> |
| CC: election-law <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu> |
Message The Washington opinion, including the dissent (two separate files) can be found at the above link.-----Original Message-----(FYI, Loyola's server and my normal email address are now back up.)
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu [mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 8:20 AM
To: election-law
Subject: Electionlawblog news and commentary 3/24/06
Will the Final Draft FEC Regulation Appear on the FEC's Website Today, In Advance of Monday's Planned Meeting?
If it does, it should appear here.
Ventura County, CA Switches from Punch Cards to Precinct-Fed Optical Scans
Tillman on Ross's Defense of the Electoral College
Here is Seth Tillman's book review of Tara Ross, Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College.
Washington State Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Requiring Unions to Use Opt-in Method To Collect Union Dues for Political Purposes
You can find the opinion in Wash. ex rel. Pub. Disclosure Comm'n v. Wash. Educ. Ass'n, Wash., No. 74268-5 here (there is a dissent, but I can't find it on Findlaw and the Washington state court website appears to be down). (Thanks to Steven Sholk for the pointer.) A snippet:
In sum, RCW 42.17.760 regulates the relationship between the union and agency fee payers with regard to political expression. Therefore, we apply the framework set forth in Boy Scouts to determine whether sec.760 violates the union's right of expressive association. The union engages in expressive activity and RCW 42.17.760's opt-in requirement significantly burdens the union's association with agency fee payers with regard to its political speech. Accepting the argument that protection of dissenters' rights is a compelling state interest, the opt-out procedure is a less restrictive constitutionally permissible alternative. RCW 42.17.760's opt-in procedure is not narrowly tailored to advance the State's interest in protecting dissenters' rights, and thus, the statute is unconstitutional.
The court distinguished Mich. State AFL-CIO v. Miller, 103 F.3d 1240 (6th Cir. 1997)). For more information on this issue, see the Lowenstein and Hasen casebook at 822-23.
"Elections chief initiates propositions reform"
The Oakland Tribune offers this report from California. A snippet: "Secretary of State Bruce McPherson and lawmakers, backed by the League of Women Voters, pitched a bipartisan package of initiative-revamp bills that would let the Legislature adopt a proposition, avoiding a nasty, costly campaign."
"New Orleans elections jeopardized again"
A.P. offers this brief report saying there is a new federal court challenge to delay the voting in New Orleans.
McClellan Briefing Mentions Voting Rights Act
From yesterday's press briefing at the White House:
Q Scott, tomorrow, Reverend Jessie Jackson, Bruce Gordon -- and Al Sharpton are holding a press conference basically saying the Justice Department blessed an illegal election, an illegal arrangement, saying that the Justice Department violated Section II in the Voting Rights Act, and Section V, basically that the voting rights extension next year means nothing without voting rights enforcement this year. And what are your thoughts as to his statement from Reverend Jessie Jackson, as this administration is for the extension --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, by law, Congress made the Justice Department the agency to review these election issues. And the state of Louisiana came through -- came forward with a plan -- this was last week, we've talked about it before -- they presented a plan, and the Justice Department reviewed it and signed off on the plan that leaders in Louisiana came together to develop.
So I think if you have further questions about it, you ought to talk to the Department of Justice, because they looked at these issues to make sure concerns were being addressed and that the elections could proceed forward.
Q This department is under the auspices of this administration where the Justice Department's boss is the President of the United States, who has said that he wants to extend the Voting Rights Act, and not only that, he supports certain sections of it and he wants to tweak it to make it stronger. Now, how can that be -- it seems like it's a conflict within this administration when you have a President saying --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, the President strongly supports reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, and the Justice Department is committed to the administration's position. This is a specific matter relating to Louisiana. There was a plan that Louisiana -- state of Louisiana brought forward for review by the Department of Justice, and they reviewed it and approved it.
"Sections of the Voting Rights Act will soon need reauthorization"
Indian Country Today offers this report.
"Redistricting Plan a Long Shot, but a Promise Is a Promise"
George Skelton has written this LA Times commentary.
-- 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
-- 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