"The Big Campaign Finance Story of 2011: An Effective End to Public Financing"

I have just written this post for Summary Judgments, the new Loyola Law School Los Angeles faculty blog. The post begins:

It is with great pleasure that I kick off the "11 on '11" series at Summary Judgments, the new Loyola Law School, Los Angeles faculty blog. The series asks us to identify what is likely to be the most significant legal development in our field in 2011. In the field of campaign finance, the big story is likely to be the continued demise in public financing of campaigns, a development caused by both court rulings and legislative inertia.

As early as tomorrow morning, I expect the United States Supreme Court to agree to hear McComish v. Bennett, a case challenging the matching funds provision of Arizona's public financing law. Under the law, a candidate for state office who agrees to take public financing in lieu of private funds to finance a campaign receives extra public financing when the candidate faces a wealthy opponent who spends large sums in the election or by large independent expenditures against the candidate accepting public financing. As I explained in a June post at the Election Law Blog, I expect the Court to not only take this case, but to reverse the Ninth Circuit and strike down the Arizona public financing system. (To be clear, that's not a result I favor: the Ninth Circuit's opinion in the case, and Judge Kleinfeld's concurrence, offer strong reasons to reach a contrary decision in this case and uphold the Arizona regime.)

"Recount to Begin in Minnesota Governor's Race"

AP offers this report.

"Despite Alaska Senate race results, Joe Miller presses on in principle"

The Washington Post offers this report.

"Redistricting Advantage in Illinois Keeps Democrats in Play"

Roll Call offers this report.

"APNewsBreak: Rangel wants House to reject censure"

See here.

"New Chairman Seeks More Power for Watchdogs"

The NY Times offers this report, which begins: "The Republican who will lead the chief investigative committee in the House is planning to vastly expand scrutiny of the Obama administration by seeking new subpoena powers for dozens of federal agency watchdogs in hopes of using their investigations and his own in an aggressive push to cut spending and shrink the government. "

"The Cost of Statewide Recounts: a Case Study of Minnesota and Washington"

Conny McCormack has written this study for the Pew Center on the States. From a description of the report on the website: "The study found that costs differed greatly depending on the state and local laws and regulations governing the recount process. In Minnesota, the study estimates that the manual recount cost counties, on average, more than 15 cents per ballot, with total costs surpassing $460,000. In Washington, the manual recount cost counties an average of more than 30 cents per ballot, with total costs just over $900,000. Washington counties also spent more than $260,000 to conduct an initial machine recount, increasing total recount costs for local jurisdictions to over $1.16 million. This study provides valuable insights that can help states and localities identify opportunities to cut costs and optimize limited resources."

"Lobbyists group denounces OMB guidance to ban K Street from boards"

The Hill offers this report.

"Cincinnati appeals court blocks judge vote probe"

Following up on this post, the Cincinnati Enquirer offers this report, which begins: "U.S. District Court Judge Susan Dlott's order that the Hamilton County Board of Elections investigate 849 provisional ballots that could tip the balance in an extremely close juvenile court race has been temporarily set aside. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday granted a stay of the order Dlott issued late Monday night. A panel of federal judges will consider whether to do away with her order altogether."

"Election tone was anti-incumbent, but old pros handled the cash"

The LA Times offers this report.