| Subject: [EL] Alaska preclearance suit/Bopp report |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 11/1/2010, 1:55 PM |
| To: Election Law |
Reply-to: "rick.hasen@lls.edu" |
It could
happen. (Initial litigation documents here).
Does anyone know whether Alaska has sought to have the Alaska
Supreme Court order precleared by the DOJ, and if so, if the DOJ
can act today? Aside for the press of time, it is hard to see on
the merits why the DOJ would have a problem with the provision of
a list of write-in candidates for those voters who request it and
who need it to cast a valid vote. More to the point, it seems the
state could easily demonstrate that such a change in the law will
have neither a discriminatory purpose nor effect under section 5
of the Voting Rights Act. (To be clear, the issue before the three
judge court that should act later today is not that
question. It is whether the Alaska Supreme Court's order can go
into effect without preclearance.)
I am no fan of Jim Bopp. We have been on opposite sides of
campaign finance and judicial conduct regulation issues for
quite some time. Now we are on opposite sides in litigation, in
the San Diego campaign finance case, currently pending before
the Ninth Circuit. But I have now had a chance to look at the new
report about Bopp for Common Cause and Public Campaign,
and I have to speak out. Stripping away the hyperbole, here's
what I think the report says: Jim Bopp has long been involved in
conservative and Republican causes, beginning with his
anti-abortion work. He brings lots of lawsuits challenging
campaign finance laws and related laws. His work is supported by
the Republican Party and by wealthy conservative individuals and
organizations. These entities give money to the James Madison
Center, which then pays Bopp's law firm. Bopp has a long term
litigation strategy, like many cause lawyers: he's working hard
for a completely deregulated campaign finance system.
I have a hard time seeing anything remotely scandalous or
improper in the report. There are certainly lawyers on the other
side of this cause, whose work is financed in part through
contributions from like-minded individuals and entities, and who
pursue mirror long term goals: ensuring that the courts allow
legislative bodies to pass reasonable campaign finance
regulations. What was the point of releasing 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