-----Original Message-----
From: Trevor Potter [mailto:TP@Capdale.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 5:05 AM
To: Volokh, Eugene; election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: RE: Re: [EL] more news II 11/1/10
What this says is that it is ok to engage in retribution against state judges for
their constitutional rulings if their states provide a mechanism for doing so, but
not ok to do so against federal judges simply because no such voting mechanism
exists. That doesn't seem to advance the discussion much at the theorectical
level-it just states the fact that a direct option exists under some systems and
not under others.
Further, I'm not sure it succesfully differentiates the two systems--there is a
federal impeachment option, which is waved around when Justices make
decisions that Members of Congress, the people's representatives, disagree
with. More than one member has suggested impeachment of Chief Justice
Roberts for his Citizens United ruling. THAT would be direct democracy in action
at the federal election, under this theory...
Trevor Potter
Sent by Good Messaging (www.good.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:VOLOKH@law.ucla.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 10:56 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] more news II 11/1/10
If we had a system where U.S. Supreme Court Justices were elected,
then it seems to me that it would be perfectly proper for the voters to vote
Justices out of office if they thought the Justices' votes on Citizens United, or
D.C. v. Heller, or a wide range of other cases were unsound interpretations of
the Constitution -- and I say this as someone who agrees with the majorities in
Citizens United and Heller. We don't have such a system at the U.S. Supreme
Court level; that may be good or it may be bad, but we don't.
But in many states, we do have such a system. And I see no reason why
the people of the state, in whose name the state constitution is created, can't
act to remove their servants based on those servants' highly contestable
interpretations of that state's constitution.
Eugene
-----Original Message-----
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [mailto:election-law-
bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Trevor Potter
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 7:14 PM
To: rick.hasen@lls.edu; election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] more news II 11/1/10
Jim Bopp writes:
I say there is nothing frightening about holding public officials accountable for
their conduct in office. Judges are supposed to faithfully apply the law and not
use their judicial power to impose their own personal policy preferences.
These
judges imposed their own personal policy preferences, thereby violating their
oath of office, and should pay the price. Good riddance to judicial activists.
_________________________________________________________________
________________
Good thing Supreme Court Justices' opinions are not subject to voter
approval,
or Jim would lose his Citizens United majority!
There is no principled difference between subjecting Iowa Justices to voter
retribution for interpreting the Iowa Constitution and proposing the same fate
for US Supreme court justices--yet Jim on this list serve only days ago was
bemoaning even subjecting constitutional decisions (Citizens United) to polling
scrutiny.
I know consistency is the hobgoblin of narrow minds, but still...
Trevor Potter
________________________________
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu on behalf of JBoppjr@aol.com
Sent: Mon 11/1/2010 8:16 PM
To: rick.hasen@lls.edu; election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] more news II 11/1/10
Rick Hasen says:
"New Iowa Poll: Voters tilt toward axing justices"
Frightening news
<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20101031/NEWS09/10310356/Ne
w-Iowa-Poll-Voters-tilt-toward-axing-justices> from Iowa (via Wash Wire
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/11/01/iowa-voters-split-on-removing-
state-justices-for-gay-marriage-
ruling/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A
+wsj%2Fwashwire%2Ffeed+%28WSJ.com%3A+Washington+Wire%29> ).
Posted by Rick Hasen at 11:30 AM
<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/017724.html>
I say there is nothing frightening about holding public officials accountable for
their conduct in office. Judges are supposed to faithfully apply the law and not
use their judicial power to impose their own personal policy preferences.
These
judges imposed their own personal policy preferences, thereby violating their
oath of office, and should pay the price. Good riddance to judicial activists.
Jim
Bopp
In a message dated 11/1/2010 4:13:26 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
hasenr@gmail.com writes:
November 01, 2010
"Justices won't take up sequel to Citizens United decision"
Law.com's "Supreme Court Insider" reports
<http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleSCI.jsp?id=1202474248905&src=EMC-
Email&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&pt=Supreme%20Court%20
Insider&cn=20101101sci&kw=Justices%20won%27t%20hear%20sequel%20to%2
0Citizens%20United%20decision> .
Posted by Rick Hasen at 12:54 PM
<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/017732.html>
Federal District Court in Minnesota Rejects Request for TRO in Tea Party
Garb /"Please ID Me" Button Lawsuit
You can read the judge's order here
<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/Minnesota%20Majority%20order.pdf> .
Posted by Rick Hasen at 12:38 PM
<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/017731.html>
Control of the Senate
Though Senator Cornyn seems to concede
<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/126697-cornyn-will-
probabaly-take-two-cycles-for-gop-to-get-senate> that Republicans will not
take the Senate in this election, if it is very close there are open questions
about
whether Sen. Murkowski, if she is reelected, will caucus
<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44481.html> with the
Republicans. There is also some nervousness
<http://elections.firedoglake.com/2010/10/28/fdls-election-projection-
challenge-place-your-bets/> expressed by Democrats that Sen. Lieberman
could
caucus with Republicans.
More to the point for this blog, I think it is fairly likely we won't know
the results of the U.S. Senate races in Alaska or Washington state by
Wednesday
morning, unless the polling of those races has been way off. So things may up
in
the air for a while.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 12:34 PM
<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/017730.html>
"The voter fraud & intimidation stories you won't hear about on Fox"
interesting item <http://mediamatters.org/research/201011010027>
from Media Matters.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 12:16 PM
<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/017729.html>
"CPA finds solid business leader support for corporate political
disclosure and accountability in new survey"
See this press release
<http://www.politicalaccountability.net/index.php?ht=a/GetDocumentAction/i/
4088> .
Posted by Rick Hasen at 12:00 PM
<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/017727.html>
"Dead Voters" and the Early Vote
In writing about the "dead voter" non-phenomenon a few days ago
<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/017683.html> , I mentioned that despite
a
few real examples, "dead voters" far more often either aren't dead, aren't
voters, or are different people altogether from those flagged in state records.
I should have added that even finding real deceased voters doesn't
always reveal unlawful activity. For example, legitimate voters have died after
<http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-08-24/news/1995236093_1_voting-
machines-vote-fraud-criminal-conspiracy/2> election day. And a timely new
Virginia Attorney General's opinion
<http://www.oag.state.va.us/OPINIONS/2010opns/10-104-Lind.pdf> reminds
me that early voting provides yet another category of "dead voters" without
fraud: voters who cast legitimate ballots before election day but then pass
away
before the polls close. With the increase in non-polling-place voting more
generally, I wouldn't be surprised to see a few more of these anecdotes
cropping up.
Posted by Justin Levitt at 11:52 AM
<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/017728.html>
"Handbook on Corporate Political Activity: Emerging Corporate
Governance Issues"
The Conference Board has issued this report <http://www.conference-
board.org/publications/publicationdetail.cfm?publicationid=1867> .
Posted by Rick Hasen at 11:41 AM
<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/017726.html>
Speechnow: The Glass is More than Half Full
The cert denial press release
<http://www.campaignfreedom.org/newsroom/detail/us-supreme-court-
declines-to-review-speechnoworg-free-speech-case> .
Posted by Rick Hasen at 11:37 AM
<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/017725.html>
"New Iowa Poll: Voters tilt toward axing justices"
Frightening news
<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20101031/NEWS09/10310356/Ne
w-Iowa-Poll-Voters-tilt-toward-axing-justices> from Iowa (via Wash Wire
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/11/01/iowa-voters-split-on-removing-
state-justices-for-gay-marriage-
ruling/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A
+wsj%2Fwashwire%2Ffeed+%28WSJ.com%3A+Washington+Wire%29> ).
Posted by Rick Hasen at 11:30 AM
<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/017724.html>
--
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 <http://electionlawblog.org/>
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,
we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise,
any tax advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related
penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting,
marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related
matter addressed herein.
This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is
from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,
we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise,
any tax advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related
penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting,
marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related
matter addressed herein.
This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is
from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,
we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise,
any tax advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related
penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting,
marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related
matter addressed herein.
This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is
from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
<-->