| Subject: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 11/13/10 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 11/13/2010, 3:04 PM |
| To: Election Law |
Reply-to: "rick.hasen@lls.edu" |
The NYT explores
in a front-page report.
Some Senators want
it. The House GOP will
vote on it. President Obama wants it too
(weekly radio address). But the head of the American League of
Lobbyists says
an earmarks ban would be "foolish."
The WSJ's "Numbers Guy" says
not as much as you'd think (via Political
Wire.
It appears to be game
over
in Alaska, as the Senator's margin appears to exceed Joe Miller
even if all of Miller's spelling challenges were accepted. In
the meantime, in response to my Slate piece on the
controversy, an Alaska reader wrote to say it was his
recollection that these write-in rules were crafted after Bush
v. Gore precisely to take discretion away from Alaska election
officials and the courts in such cases. If that's correct, I
believe it would be relevant to the question of how to read the
statute. In any case, after this controversy, it would be good
for the Alaska state legislature (and other state legislatures)
to clarify how election officials should handle minor spelling
errors.
Thad Kousser has written this
LA Times oped
-- 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