More Coverage and Commentary on Stewart v. Blackwell

Lyle Denniston at Scotusblog writes Analysis: Bush v. Gore Lives. Bob Bauer writes April in Election Law; or Bush v. Gore Looks Pretty Good After All these Years (which also discusses the recent Indiana voter i.d. lawsuit). Dan Tokaji writes Sixth Circuit Holds Ohio Voting Systems Unconstitutional. And Howard Bashman links to news articles from Ohio on the case.

My earlier analysis of the case, and of the argument between the majority and dissenting opinions over one of my law review articles, is here.

What Happens to Monterey Initiative Kicked Off the Ballot Under the Authority of the Padilla v. Lever Case?

This Monterey Herald report about the unexpected (and poorly timed) resignation of Monterey County Registrar of Voters Tony Anchundo also notes the following:

Anchundo has been thrust in the middle of several complex and emotionally charged land-use issues during the past several months.

The controversy revolves around two ballot initiatives -- the first a community-inspired General Plan, the second a challenge to supervisors' approval of a subdivision north of Salinas -- and the fact that supporters of the initiatives failed to circulate Spanish-language versions of the ballot measures while gathering signatures.

Both proposals are knocking around federal court.

Initiative proponents easily gathered enough signatures to qualify their measure for the June ballot, but the Board of Supervisors refused to place the issues on the ballot, citing the Voting Rights Act.

Even as news of Anchundo's resignation stunned county officials, they learned Friday that the Community General Plan Initiative may have new life after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ordered a new hearing in a case that led to a district court ruling removing the initiative from the ballot.

Thursday's ruling could revive Measure C, the ballot measure intended to overturn county approval of the 671-acre Butterfly Village project north of Salinas.

A three-judge panel in the appellate court ruled last fall that petitions and other materials related to ballot measures could not be limited to English in most California counties. Because the General Plan Initiative materials were not translated into Spanish, U.S. District Judge James Ware last month pulled the measure from the June ballot, citing the 2-1 appeals court ruling known as Padilla v. Lever. Monterey County supervisors followed suit by removing Measure C from the ballot on the same basis.

On Thursday, Chief Judge Mary Schroeder of the court of appeal ordered that the Padilla case be heard again by an 11-judge panel and that the earlier decision not be used as precedent to decide other voting-rights cases.

There was no indication when the hearing might be scheduled, though the California Attorney General's Office and other government bodies have been pushing for a rehearing as soon as possible because the Padilla decision has confused the status of several potential ballot measures.

LandWatch Monterey County, one of the key groups behind the slow-growth Community General Plan Initiative, has said it was hoping for a rehearing in time to get the measure on the November ballot.

Perhaps I'm reading the article wrong, but it sounds like the Monterey opponents want a rehearing in Padilla v. Lever and an opinion issued there before they go back to Judge Ware asking for him to reconsider his order. I'm not sure that this is necessary. As I've noted, the grant of en banc rehearing in the Padilla case wipes the precedent off the books. Why not make a motion to Judge Ware now, saying that there is no Ninth Circuit authority holding that recall petitions (or initiative petitions) must comply with section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, and two Court of Appeals cases from other circuits hold to the contrary as to initiative petitions?
By the way, the amicus letter I sought to file in the Ninth Circuit supporting en banc rehearing in Padilla was rejected as untimely by the court.

More Controversy over Portland's Campaign Finance System

See here.

"Many counties returning to paper ballots"

The Contra Costa Times offers this report.

"No Rush Detected to Vote Absentee"

The Cincinnatti Post offers this report, which begins: "Ohio voters for the first time won't need an excuse to vote by mail in the May 2 election. A new law opens the door to everyone to mail in their vote. But poll workers say they haven't seen a significant spike in requests for the absentee ballots."

"Bilingual mailers causing uproar; Election officials telling irate callers law requires Spanish-language version"

The Rocky Mountain News offers this report.

"Where Are They Now?" Department: Republicans for Clean Air

The poster child for the need for BCRA's bright line "electioneering communications" provision as applied to disclosure was "Republicans for Clean Air," a mysterious group that ran ads attacking John McCain when he ran in the NY primary against George Bush for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination. (The incident is mentioned by the Supreme Court in its McConnell decision, upholding BCRA). Because the ad didn't contain express advocacy (such as "Oppose McCain!"), it was exempt from federal election disclosure requirements.

It turns out that the ads were funded by the Wyly brothers, two Texas oilmen with close ties to George Bush. If I recall correctly, some enterprising reporter figured that out. In any case, Chris Cillizza reports:

The most interesting names on the host committee [for a May McCain fundraiser in Dallas]? Sam and Charles Wyly -- the wealthy Dallas-based brothers who funded and ran "Republicans for Clean Air," a 527 group that attacked McCain for his environmental record during the 2000 primaries. In the aftermath of his defeat, McCain specifically cited the group in his plea for more and better campaign finance reform, saying the groups were "making a mockery of existing campaign finance laws."

-- 
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