" Despite limits, big donations to independent groups keep cost of running for governor high"

See this report in the SF Chronicle.

"State Court Races Will Get Even Pricier"

See this post from Political Wire.

"REGISTRAR: BOND MEASURE SNAFU WON'T PREVENT CERTIFICATION"

See this news report from Oakland, which begins: "Alameda County Acting Registrar of Voters Dave Macdonald said today that he probably will certify a $390 million bond measure for the Peralta Community College District despite an apparent voting instruction mistake that could have influenced the election." I believe this is the first time I've been quoted as using the word "boneheaded."

"The Limits of Studies (of Contribution Limits)"

Bob Bauer has this new post.

Bellmore Responds to ACLU Report

Following up on this link to the new ACLU report on felon disenfranchisement, Brett Bellmore sends along the following comments via e-mail:

I'll be up front about this: I actually favor restoring ALL the civil rights of felons, on their exit from prison. (More on this later.)

However, a pretty strong argument to the contrary can be made, and I find the ACLU's position on the *partial* restoration of civil liberties sufficiently inconsistant, that I doubt their good faith.

First, that argument: Unlike many civil rights, such as freedom of speech, the right to vote is NOT among the inalienable rights government is instituted to protect. It is a matter of civil participation, rather, similar to jury duty. People don't vote because voting is valuable in and of itself, like freedom of speech. They do so to participate in the selection of our government.

Felons, by their depraved actions, forfiet the presumption that they share the comunity's moral values, and that their participation in influencing government policy would actually be a *positive* contribution. Rather, by their conviction the contrary presumption is created, that they hold depraved values, and to the extent their votes steer public policy, they steer it towards *evil*, not good.

That presumption might reasonably be overturned in particular cases, by some specific showing of redemption. But it is not an unreasonable presumption to hold, and to base policy on. Or at least not so unreasonable as to rise to a constitutional level.

Now, that said, there are of course several problems with this argument. The first and most glaring is that "felony inflation", and the vast expansion of malum prohibitum law, render the assumption that convicted felons are in any way depraved dubious at best. Though the legal fiction is that an act somehow becomes depraved if a law is passed against it....

The second is that denying released felons the vote requires a mechanism for that denial, which is awkward, expensive, and error prone. To the extent that convicted felons who've been released ARE actually depraved, the cost of including their votes doesn't justify the trouble of excluding them.

Now, as to the ACLU, I find their admiration for foreign concepts of appropriate civil liberties somewhat strange. It seems to only apply to those liberties and nations which actually agree with preconcieved ACLU policy. For instance, how about abortion? Regulation of offensive speech? Or even, (Strossen assures us civil liberties aren't "coextensive" with the Constitution.) the right to trial by jury? Funny how the ACLU doesn't find us being out of step on THOSE subjects troublesome.

Further, voting is of course scarcely the only right denied to convicted felons. How about that right the ACLU fears to defend, gun ownership? It's beyond me why a non-violent felon should be denied the means to defend himself, given the extent to which prohibitions on gun ownership by convicted felons are far harder to enforce, and the degree to which attempts at enforcement have compromised the liberties of the law abiding majority.

Frankly, while I don't find the argument I related above fully persuasive, it does reduce my concern about felon disenfranchisement to the point where I won't support it *by itself*. Whole hog or nothing: Until the ACLU comes out for returning to convicted felons ALL their rights, I'll find the obvious accusation persuasive: They don't support reenfranchisement out of civil liberties concerns. They support it because they're Democrats, and felons are known to vote heavily Democratic.

Prove me wrong, ACLU: Take the *principled* stand for once.

Brett Bellmore

"Those Pesky Voters"

Bob Herbert has this column (subscription required) in the NY Times. Not all Democrats would agree with Herbert that it is useful for Democrats to claim fraud occurred in Ohio 2004.

"Out of Step With the World: An Analysis of Felony Disfranchisement in the U.S. and Other Democracies"

The ACLU has published this report. From the report:

This report offers the first in-depth analysis of the criminal disfranchisement policies of the world's democracies, with a focus on Europe. (We do also examine, though perhaps not in the same depth, other developed democracies' policies and precedents, namely those of Israel, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.) Simply describing these laws accurately has proven a surprisingly difficult task; a few previous authors have attempted to do so, focusing their attention mostly on documents such as constitutions and election-law statutes.6 We have drawn on their important work here, but have found that constitutions and statutes alone often fail to deliver a full understanding of a given country's disfranchisement policies and practices. In addition to such formal legal sources, this report benefits from exhaustive research into legislative materials, judicial proceedings, advocacy reports, and numerous other sources, including information from original surveys and interviews with governmental and non-governmental officials of several countries. No previous publication has synthesized so much country-by country disfranchisement data, decisions of high courts, and international legal instruments.

Following this Introduction, Section II of the report describes the policies of European nations, and Section III offers detailed summaries of the decisions rendered by various countries' constitutional courts in the last decade. Section IV examines mechanisms used in various democracies to implement prisoner voting, and Section V considers treaties and other legal instruments, both binding and advisory, which bear on the voting rights of people with criminal convictions.

These are among the central findings of this study:

- Almost half of European countries allow all incarcerated people to vote while others disqualify only a small number of prisoners from the polls. As we explain below, almost all of the countries that disqualify all inmates are in Eastern Europe.

- In most countries where disfranchisement does exist, the policy is both more narrowly targeted and more visible in its application than in the United States.

- A number of treaties and other types of international instruments support either the abolition of criminal disfranchisement law, or considerably narrower restrictions than those employed by most American states.

- All foreign constitutional courts that have evaluated disfranchisement law have found the automatic, blanket disqualification of prisoners to violate basic democratic principles. In countries where courts have called for enfranchisement of inmates, the legislative and executive branches have complied without significant resistance.

- Where prisoners are allowed to vote, they do so either in the correctional facilities themselves - with no threat to security - or by some version of absentee ballot, in their town of previous residence, in all cases with government entities facilitating the voting. In no country do prisoners vote in a manner that allows them to shape the politics of the prison locality.

Readers will have different responses to this evidence. Some will deduce from the widespread and unproblematic fact of prisoner voting elsewhere that the United States should promptly overhaul its policies. Others may scoff, perhaps having already concluded that the ideas and policies of other countries are and should remain irrelevant to the American political context.

We believe no less an authority than the American Declaration of Independence counsels against the latter conclusion. As Jefferson famously wrote, "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires" that we be able to explain the reasons for our policies to others. While it is not our view that the international setting alone justifies a change in American law, we do argue that the evidence compiled here should induce greater skepticism about the wisdom of disfranchisement law in the United States.

In our view, this evidence, coupled with the serious and extensive problems these laws pose for both the officials administering them and those affected by them, counsels in favor of rethinking the broad bans and replacing them with rational, tailored bans, or none at all. Given the relative ease (and low cost) of administering absentee ballot voting in prisons, states may want to seriously consider the examples of Maine, Vermont and Puerto Rico. Or, following the example of some European democracies, consider barring only those it makes sense to bar - for example, those convicted of election fraud. Another possibility would be to enfranchise all except the incarcerated, with no documentary requirement complicating reinstatement on the rolls after release from prison. Although such a policy now survives only in the most regressive European nations, it would constitute a significant movement forward for most American states, given how far out of step the United States is on this issue. Moreover, inmate-only disfranchisement - if you are able to appear physically at the polls and meet age and residency requirements, you are eligible to vote - would solve the multitude of problems now bedeviling the administration of disfranchisement policies in the U.S.

"Recipe For A Fair Election"

Steven Hill has this commentary at Tompaine.com.

"Flanking Frist"

Roll Call offers this report (paid subscription required), which begins: "Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) faces a strong challenge on his right if he brings to the floor a lobbying reform package that cracks down on the independent political groups known as 527s. Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) plans to send a letter to Frist this week threatening to filibuster the bill if it includes the provision, which was approved by the House but is absent from the Senate version of the lobbying rules overhaul. The letter is so far co-signed by GOP Sens. Sam Brownback (Kan.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), Jim DeMint (S.C.), Mike Enzi (Wyo.), John Sununu (N.H.) and David Vitter (La.)."

The letter has been sent, and you can find it here.

Oral Argument in 7th Circuit Ballot Access Case Now Available on Line

See here, with links to the briefs as well.

-- 
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