| Subject: Electionlawblog news and commentary 4/4/06 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 4/4/2006, 9:15 AM |
| To: election-law |
Kos asks if there will be a special election to fill DeLay's seat. In my earlier post, I explained in detail that if DeLay moves out of state and becomes ineligible for office now, the governor can call a special election. But the winner of that election would only serve out the rest of DeLay's remaining term. If the winner of the special election (which is subject to a majority vote rule with a runoff if necessary) is a Republican, presumably the Republican party will name that special election winner to fill the vacancy in the November general election. If a Democrat runs and wins the special election, the Democrat would serve only until the end of DeLay's current term. Whether or not that Democrat is Nick Lamson, Lamson is the one who already has the Democratic nomination to run in the general election in November. If Lamson won the special, Republicans would name someone else to run against him in the general.
Given these complications, why doesn't DeLay simply serve out the
rest of his term and not run for reelection? I suspect the reason is
that Republicans think they have an advantage in producing a winner
from the special election, which is subject to a majority vote
requirement (meaning there will be a runoff if no candidate in the
first round gets 50% of the vote).
Daniel Weintraub offers this
column in the Sacramento Bee. It begins: "California's
system of direct democracy could be threatened by a recent federal
court decision concluding that the federal Voting Rights Act requires
petitions circulated by private citizens to be translated into foreign
languages." The column also mentions the
amicus letter I recently filed in the Monterey case: "No one has
yet challenged a statewide ballot measure on these grounds, but that
seems inevitable. And if the 9th Circuit's ruling applies to those
cases as well, initiative and recall petitions will have to be
translated into several languages depending on the demographic makeup
of the community in which they are circulated. Richard Hasen, a Loyola
Law School professor who has followed the case closely, wrote the Court
of Appeals last week urging it to block the ruling from taking effect
lest it 'wreak havoc' on the state's June and November elections."
Weintraub concludes: "At the moment, though, the ruling stands, ticking
like a political time bomb waiting to explode California's love affair
with the initiative process."
The Campaign Finance Institute has issued this press release. A
snippet: "So far in the 2005-06 election, federal 527s have raised $49
million and spent $58 million (after deducting inter-group transfers).
These figures are based on reports to the Internal Revenue Service
through December 31, 2005. The contributions are 80% of the $62 million
that comparable federal 527s raised during 2003. Democratic-oriented
groups, including labor unions, were (again) predominant in 2005,
raising 3 times as much as Republican ones." See also Colorado
is hot spot for politicking by 527s at Stateline.org.
This
article ran in the Orange County Register Saturday. It
begins: "More than 100 Orange County residents who thought they were
simply signing petitions to cure breast cancer, punish child molesters
or build schools were duped into registering as Republicans, an Orange
County Register investigation found."
Roll Call offers this
report (paid subscription required), which begins: "House
Republican leaders are bracing for a close vote on their push to rein
in the free-spending nonprofit groups known as 527s, even as the
details of the legislation the House plans to vote on Wednesday remain
in flux." Another snippet: "Despite the potential for a floor fight in
the House, the bill’s chances in the Senate are already poor, with
the Democratic leadership in that chamber on record as opposing it."
Some reform groups favor
the bill, but Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald opposes it in this Roll
Call oped.
From Supreme Court guru Marty Lederman, here are the possible dates
for the Supreme Court issuing opinions in the major pending election
law cases this term:
4/18, 19, 25, 26
5/1, 15, 22, 30
6/5, 12, 19, 26 (plus possible extra days toward the end)
-- 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