| Subject: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 10/8/10 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 10/8/2010, 8:06 AM |
| To: Election Law |
Nicholas Stephanopoulos has written this
piece for TNR.
Meredith McGehee's analysis
begins: "The Office of Congressional Ethics is under fire and
certainly there is no shortage of Members calling for closing
the office altogether or at least stripping it of powers in an
attempt to bring it to heel. Either action would be a grave
mistake if Congress is to have any hope of rehabilitating itself
in the eyes of the public."
Here.
In the Google matter, the vote was 4-2.
That's Sean Greene's lead story in this
week's Electionline Weekly.
ABC News reports.
I'd like to know more about this
Missouri appeal. Is anyone considering application of
federal protections for non-English speaking voters under the
VRA?
McClatchy offers this
report. CCP asks
if the Chamber is guilty until proven innocent. My view: If we
had effective disclosure laws, no one would need to wonder about
foreign spending by the Chamber, labor unions, or anyone else.
CBSNews.com reports.
The NY Times offers this
report. It has this
accompanying graphic.
The Times has now posted this
accompanying article.
Via Howard
Bashman come links to the per
curiam opinion, Judge Thomas's narrower concurring
opinion for four judges, and Judge Graber's opinion
concurring in the judgment.
Though there are differences among the judges' opinions, the
controlling language is from the per curiam opinion, which reads
the possibility of a felon disenfranchisement case under VRA
section 2 verry narrowly: "we hold that plaintiffs bringing a
section 2 VRA challenge to a felon disenfranchisement law based
on the operation of a states criminal justice system must at
least show that the criminal justice system is infected by intentional
discrimination or that the felon disenfranchisement law was
enacted with such intent. Our ruling is limited to this narrow
issue, and we express no view as to any of the other issues
raised by the parties and amici. We also leave for another day
the question of whether a plaintiff who has made the required
showing would necessarily establish that a felon
disenfranchisement law violates section 2." (original emphasis).
Both the Ninth Circuit case and the First Circuit case raise the
VRA section 2 felon disenfranchisement issue. I originally predicted
the Supreme Court would take the original Ninth Circuit case,
continuing (from an earlier 9th Circuit case) to recognize a VRA
section 2 felon disenfranchisement claim) unless the
Ninth Circuit reversed the panel en banc. The en banc reversal
of the panel decision is exactly what happened today.
There is now no split on this question as the Supreme Court
decides whether to hear the First Circuit case. It is unlikely
to do so especially in light of the Solicitor
General's invitation brief suggesting that the Court
should not take the case in the absence of a circuit split, I
now think it is exceedingly unlikely the Court will wade into
this sensitive area of race an politics at this point. This is
sure to disappoint
Linda Greenhouse but I see it as better than the
Supreme Court agreeing to hear the case.
The LA Times offers this
report.
This
interview appears on the website of the Center for Public
Integrity.