| Subject: [EL] Conferences |
| From: "Goldfeder, Jerry H." <jgoldfeder@stroock.com> |
| Date: 10/1/2010, 9:02 AM |
| To: 'DANIEL TOKAJI' <tokaji.1@osu.edu>, Election Law <election-law@mailman.lls.edu> |
It would be great if scheduled conferences are posted as early as possible, even if all the details are not yet worked out. Perhaps we can even set up a separate “Forthcoming Conferences” email.
Jerry H. Goldfeder
Special Counsel
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038
212-806-5857 (office)
917-680-3132 (cell)
212-806-7857 (fax)
www.stroock.com/goldfeder
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu]
On Behalf Of DANIEL TOKAJI
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 11:41 AM
To: Election Law
Subject: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 10/1/10
Barry Burden, David Canon, Stephane Lavertu, Ken Mayer, and Donald Moynihan have posted
this paper. (Thanks to Ned Foley for the pointer.) Here's the abstract:
The method by which we select public officials can have a significant effect on their incentives, the constraints they face, and ultimately the policy goals they pursue. We explore this phenomenon using election administration as a case. We examine differences in the policy preferences among elected and appointed election officials, and explore the relationship between those attitudes and the administrative outcomes they may engender. We employ a uniquely rich dataset that includes the survey responses of over 1,200 Wisconsin election officials, structured interviews with dozens of these officials, and data from the 2008 presidential election. Drawing upon a natural experiment in how clerks are selected, we find that elected officials support policies that emphasize voter access rather than ballot security, and that their municipalities are associated with higher voter turnout. For appointed officials, we find that voter turnout in a municipality is noticeably lower when the local election official's partisanship differs from the partisanship of the electorate. Overall, our results support the notion that selection methods, and the incentives that flow from those methods, matter a great deal. Elected officials are more likely to express attitudes and generate outcomes that reflect their direct exposure to voters, in contrast to the more insulated position of appointed officials.
As I've argued
here (and, at greater length, in
this article and a forthcoming ELJ article that draws on the work of Dan Lowenstein), party-affiliated election officials face an inherent conflict of interest. But until now, there's been little research on
exactly how selection methods affect local election administrators' decisionmaking. This paper appears to be an important contribution to the debate over whether and how to reform the institutions that runs American elections.
Posted by Dan Tokaji at
08:15 AM
Abby Thernstrom and Roger Clegg have
these thoughts on the broader implications of
Coates' testimony last week.
Posted by Dan Tokaji at
08:06 AM
BNA reports
here($) on the House's passage of FEIA (H.R. 512), which would
prohibit state chief election officials from serving in a leadership role in federal campaigns. The bill required -- and received -- a two-thirds vote because it was passed under suspension of the rules, but faces an uncertain fate the in Senate. The same
story reports on the House's passage of the Pre-Election Presidential Transition Act (S. 3196, already approved by the Senate), authorizing GSA to provide transition resources to major-party nominees before the general election.
Posted by Dan Tokaji at
07:21 AM
BNA has
this report ($) and WSJ blog
this one on
Senator Patrick Leahy's introduction of a bill to amend the "honest services" statute. This is the statute that was at issue in
Skilling v. United States, which held that it reaches only bribery and kickbacks, not undisclosed self-dealing. Although the main focus of this week's Senate Judiciary Committee appears to have been on self-dealing by corporate officers and directors,
the statute would also cover public officials.
Posted by Dan Tokaji at
07:03 AM
See
here,
here,
here, and
here for reports on the case challenging a law that dates back to 1912. Arguments on cross-motions for summary judgment were heard yesterday, and a decision is expected by November.
Posted by Dan Tokaji at
06:52 AM
Politico reports
here on a
decision of the DC District Court, denying Judicial Watch's request for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's records concerning campaign contributions.
Posted by Dan Tokaji at
09:42 PM
Legal Ethics Forum has
this post on the indictment of a former NJ state legislator, arising from money his law firm received, purportedly for legal services but really (the indictment alleges) for supporting a development project. The
linked story reports that state law doesn't require legislators to disclose their clients, the nature of their work, or how much they're getting, thus opening the door to conflicts and even bribery.
Posted by Dan Tokaji at
09:30 PM
The Center for Responsive Politics opensecrets.org website has
launched a
two-week series on the money behind the 2010 congressional elections. It includes
this story on Republicans' financial advantages in races for open House seats.
Posted by Dan Tokaji at
08:55 PM
SCOTUS Blog reports
here on the
order denying Herb Lux's request for an order requiring Virginia to count petition signatures that he personally collected and witnessed, in an effort to run as an independent candidate for Virginia's Seventh CD.
Posted by Dan Tokaji at
08:45 PM
See
here for a description of and link to an interesting ALJ decision from Colorado, mentioned in
this NYT editorial. The decision concludes that a group advocating against the retention of state judges must register as a political committee, thus limiting it to contributions of $525 per
person -- but doesn't address the First Amendment issue raised by this requirement, apparently because state ALJ's aren't permitted to do so.
Posted by Dan Tokaji at
08:27 PM
The NYT reports
here on the remarks of George Gonzalez, NYC Board of Elections ED, at a state senate hearing.
Posted by Dan Tokaji at
02:18 PM
The EAC has issued
this release, noting that 30.3% of people vote early in 2008.
Posted by Dan Tokaji at
02:05 PM
National Law Journal reports
here on challenges to judicial campaign speech limits in Indiana and Wisconsin, brought by Jim Bopp.
Posted by Dan Tokaji at
01:52 PM
Tomorrow, the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania will be hosting a conference entitled "Citizens United and the Changing Political Role of the Corporation." The program may be found
here. Thanks to Rick Piides, who will be presenting at the opening session, for the pointer.
Posted by Dan Tokaji at
01:37 PM
TPMMuckraker
reports.
Posted by Rick Hasen at
08:39 AM
Today, the University of Baltimore School of Law will host a symposium entitled "A Vision for Voting:
Celebrating 45 Years, Creating a Vision for the Future," organized by Prof. Gilda Daniels. The agenda is
here. The symposium includes panels on election administration, redistricting, and campaign finance (the last of which I'll be on).
Posted by Dan Tokaji at
04:15 AM
Daniel P. Tokaji
Professor of Law
The Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law
55 W. 12th Avenue
Columbus, OH 43210
614.292.6566