| Subject: Electionlawblog news and commentary 6/30/06 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 6/30/2006, 9:28 AM |
| To: election-law |
One year ago I took my last one week blogging break. Since that time, I have posted 2,386 blog posts, which have gone out to over 700 people on the election law listserv (and some to the 150 people on the new legislation listserv); plus there have been thousands of visitors to the website (I'm constantly amazed by looking at the domain names from where I get visits!). I appreciate all of the help and support I get from other academics, lawyers, congressional staffers, and others who would like to remain nameless with tips and support. And thanks to my readers for the wonderful encouragement. I'm glad the site remains useful. Now, with another blockbuster Supreme Court term behind us, I'm taking a week off blogging to recharge my batteries. I'm also going to avoid email for a week, though those of you who know me know what kind of email addict I am.
I leave the blog in the hands of guest blogger extraordinaire, Dan
Tokaji. Dan will also post any posts from guest bloggers in the VRA
renewal forum. Thanks again to all of my readers, and have a
wonderful and restful Fourth of July!
CQ has a report (sorry I don't have a link) that repeats the rumors
I reported
yesterday
on VRA renewal timing. But I've also heard conflicting rumors that the
measure may come up in the House the week of July 17. The key action on
the part of those pushing the existing bills is to get identical bills
passed without any amendments an to avoid any kind of conference or
compromise. In the wake of the recent events in the House, this seems
less likely than before, but we'll have to wait and see.
The Arizona Republic offers this
report.
While this may be a good idea, I'm pretty sure it would violate federal
law if done in conjunction with federal elections. This is an issue I
explored in my article, Vote Buying, 88 California Law Review 1323
(2000) (in section on payments for turnout).
Door
Open for Campaign Lawsuits (on the Vermont case) and Split
Decision on Texas Gerrymander. Thanks to Steven Sholk for the
pointers.
The San Jose Mercury News offers this
report,
which begins: "SACRAMENTO--Senate Democrats held up a vote Thursday on
a bill to authorize an independent commission to draw legislative maps,
saying they needed more time to iron out concerns over minority
representation and to determine whether there will be any fallout from
this week's U.S. Supreme Court decision on redistricting."
William Powers has posted this
draft on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
This paper explains why the case of Hirst (No. 2) is an important marks an implicit shift in voting rights jurisprudence. The European Court of Human Rights established in this case that it would examine every instance of prisoner disenfranchisement with a heightened scrutiny reserved for the most fundamental of rights. This is in sharp contrast to American courts which have typically deferred to the states' police power and explicit right under the Fourteenth Amendment to limit the right to vote of individuals convicted of crimes.
By requiring member states to exercise restrictions on the right to vote proportionately, the European Court of Human Rights has set forth a new way of viewing voting rights that will certainly effect all European countries and will likely have an effect in the United States 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 (213)380-3769 - fax rick.hasen@lls.edu http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html http://electionlawblog.org