| Subject: [EL] Alaska mooted/more news III |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 11/1/2010, 4:30 PM |
| To: Election Law |
Reply-to: "rick.hasen@lls.edu" |
Following up on this
post, this
letter from the DOJ will moot the preclearance lawsuits.
(There may be post-election lawsuits, but they won't concern
this issue.)
Missing from this
quote is any recognition that there is no proof of
in-person "voter fraud" in sufficient numbers to sway the
outcome of even "close races." Perhaps Mr. von Spakovsky did not
mean to refer (solely) to in person voter fraud, but the
whole point of the article is for people to be "vigilant" at
polling places.
Following up on this
post, the Ninth Circuit motions panel has issued this
order extending the stay of the district court's order on
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell." My earlier post noted that the judges
dispensed with a reply brief. From Judge Fletcher's dissent
today, we now know that Judges O'Scannlain and Trott also would
not agree to Judge Fletcher's desire to hear oral argument in
the case. Whether they did so to keep possession of the case (a
new panel (Leavy, McKeown, and Berzon) comes on today) without
issuing some order to keep the case I do not know. It does seem
odd that the other judges would not indulge a judge's request to
hear oral argument in the case, unless there was a strong press
of time against doing so.
This case will now go before a different merits panel, which
decide the appeal from DADT on the merits (unless it is mooted
by congressional or other political action).
I agree with Dan
Tokaji's top three.
California Lawyer offers this
report.
-- 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