The law of politics and the politics of law: election law, campaign finance, legislation, voting rights, initiatives, redistricting, and the Supreme Court nomination process
Rick Hasen's web log

"Swing States Prepare for 2012, Redistricting"

Roll Call offers this report.

"Recount 2.0: With Emmer bowing out, what it bodes for future -- and what it (might have) meant"

Don't miss Jay Weiner's reflections.

"The DISCLOSE Act, Deliberation, and the First Amendment"

John Samples has posted this draft on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The United States Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that Congress may not prohibit spending on political speech by corporations. President Obama and several members of Congress have sharply criticized Citizens United, and Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen have proposed the DISCLOSE Act in response to the ruling. DISCLOSE mandates disclosure of corporate sources of independent spending on speech, putatively in the interest of shareholders and voters. However, it is unlikely that either shareholders or voters would be made better off by this legislation. Shareholders could demand and receive such disclosure without government mandates, given the efficiency of capital markets. The benefits of such disclosure for voters are likely less than assumed, while the costs are paid in chilled speech and in less rational public deliberation. DISCLOSE also prohibits speech by government contractors, TARP recipients, and companies managed by foreign nationals. The case for prohibiting speech by each of these groups seems flawed. In general, DISCLOSE exploits loopholes in Citizens United limits on government control of speech to contravene the spirit of that decision and the letter of the First Amendment.

"GOP gets queasy over earmark ban"

Politico reports.

"New parties registered to muddy political waters"

The Las Vegas Sun reports.

"Emmer concedes, redistricting battlefield set"

"The Fix" reports.

"Washington Rule Makers Out of the Shadows"

Students of legislation must read this report on what happens to the implementation of major federal laws after the president signs the bill into law.

"State Campaign Rules Debated, Challenged As Officials Respond to Key Court Decisions"

BNA offers this report.

Every Vote Counts Dept.

News from Springfield (no not that Springfield, though given the subject matter you might think so): "The owners of a New Carlisle gas station are contesting the results of the Nov. 2 election, saying their ballot request to sell beer should have won by one vote."

"Citizens United, Stevens and Humanitarian Law Project: First Amendment Rules and Standards in Three Acts"

Bill Araiza has posted this draft on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

This essay, written for a symposium on the Roberts Court's five-term anniversary, considers three First Amendment cases from the most recent Supreme Court term: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, United States v. Stevens, and Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (HLP). In these cases the Court first applied and then (in HLP) retreated from strict doctrinal rules and refusals to defer to congressional and executive determinations relevant to the First Amendment issue. This essay uses the occasion of the Roberts Court's anniversary and Justice Stevens' retirement to take a fresh look to the old question of whether rigid doctrinal rules or context-rich principles are most appropriate in constitutional jurisprudence. In particular, it considers whether rigid rules truly succeed in cabining judicial temptation to uphold speech restrictions when those restrictions respond to serious, legitimate concerns or popular calls for restricting speech.

North Carolina Court Orders Recount in IRV Race

See here.

"Top Lobbyist Ensnared in Pension Fund Scandal"

News from NY state.

"New Republican lawmakers are hiring lobbyists, despite campaign rhetoric"

WaPo offers this report.

"Alaska judge to decide Senate challenge by Friday"

AP offers this report. if anyone has a link to the briefs filed in the case, please send them along.

Indiana Law Review Election Law Symposium Now Available

Check out the must-read collection here. A particularly timely article is Nate Persily's 'Celebrating' the Tenth Anniversary of the 2000 Election Controversy: What the World Can Learn from the Recent History of Election Dysfunction in the United States.
ALSO TIMELY is Ned Foley's contribution, "The Founders' Bush v. Gore: The 1792 Election Dispute and Its Continuing Relevance."

As I've written, the tenth anniversary of Bush v. Gore is on Sunday.