| Subject: Re: [EL] cert. granted in Nevada elections case/more news |
| From: "Dalton, Linda A. (ATG)" <LindaD@ATG.WA.GOV> |
| Date: 1/7/2011, 4:22 PM |
| To: "rick.hasen@lls.edu" <rick.hasen@lls.edu>, "election-law@mailman.lls.edu" <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>, "legislation@mailman.lls.edu" <legislation@mailman.lls.edu> |
I first noted
Nevada
Ethics Commission v. Corrigan back in December. Today the
Supreme Court agreed
to hear the case, to
be heard in April.
Florida filed an amicus
brief urging the Court to take the case, on behalf of
Florida, Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio,
and Texas. The question is whether laws governing recusal of
elected officials in voting on matters in which they might have
a personal interest are subject to strict scrutiny if challenged
on First Amendment grounds. The states argue that the Court
should reverse the Nevada Supreme Court case and make clear that
such conflict of interest provisions do not violate the First
Amendment.
I'll have more to say about the case after I've read through the
briefs, but my first reaction is that I am not at all convinced
that the act of voting by an elected official (as opposed to
speaking about a measure before or after a vote) is protected
First Amendment activity at all. I think it is likely that the
Court will reverse in this case.
Jeff Brindle, Executive Director of the New Jersey Election Law
Enforcement Commission, has written this
commentary.
The Emory Law Journal will be hosting this
symposium on Feb. 10. Here's
the line-up. I'll be speaking on the first panel.