"Lobbyists: White House sends meetings off-site to hide them"

Politico offers this report. I discuss the "hydraulic" effect of lobbying regulations, including the release of the White House visitors logs, in my forthcoming Stanford Law Review article, "Lobbying, Rent Seeking, and the Constitution."

"Is Anyone Watching?"

That's the title of the new Linda Greenhouse Opinionator column at the NY Times website. The piece is about the challenge to the constitutionality of Section 5 of the VRA in the Shelby County case. In answer to the question posed in the title of the article, the answer is that at least ELB readers are watching these developments. My recent Politico column explores what is likely to happen to this case when it reaches the Supreme Court and its potential relationship to the constitutionality of the health care law.

"Stare Decisis after Citizens United: When Should Courts Overturn Precedent?"

Ilya Shapiro and Nicholas Mosvick have posted this draft on SSRN (forthcoming Nexus Journal of Law and Public Policy). Here is the abstract:

Stare decisis is an important doctrine with deep roots in the common law. It "promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process." Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827 (1991). Indeed, our interest in the law’s stability and predictability, and the reliance interests produced by judicial decisions, sometimes dictate that incorrect legal rulings be maintained - because the social disruptions from correction outweigh the benefits of reaching better decisions. Still, stare decisis is neither an "inexorable command," Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 577 (2003), nor a "mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision," Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 119 (1940). Instead it is a prudential policy, one in which courts have to decide, based on factors such as the correctness, antiquity, and workability of the legal regime a precedent created, whether to overturn their earlier rulings. As Chief Justice Roberts put it in his Citizens United concurrence, "abrogating the errant precedent, rather than reaffirming or extending it, might better preserve the law’s coherence and curtail the precedent's disruptive effects." 130 S. Ct. 876, 921 (2010) (Roberts, C.J., concurring). And so the Court in Citizens United found that both Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), and the part of McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), that relied on it were not worthy of preservation. They created an arbitrary and increasingly irrational campaign finance system that was an aberration of restrictions in a sea of protections for political speech. Moreover, then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan abandoned Austin's speech-equality rationale during oral argument, undercutting any possible reliance interests. Only by overturning precedent could the Court contribute to the stable and orderly development of the law. This article will explain the role stare decisis played in Citizens United and build on the Chief Justice's concurrence to describe the current state of the doctrine.

"Redistricting in America"

The Rose Institute has launched this site, which Political Wire calls "must see."

Links to More Amicus Briefs Supporting Arizona in McComish Case

See here.

"Court: State's voter registration practices do not violate federal election law"

The Freedom Foundation has issued this press release.

"Port Chester to Appeal U.S. Voting-Rights Ruling Aimed at Helping Latinos"

The NY Times offers this report.

"Candidate Files Federal Lawsuit to Block 'Top Two' Primary"

See this press release (complaint; preliminary injunction motion).

"Demos' Amicus Brief Supports Constitutionality of Full Public Financing Provisions, Detailing Success of Maine's Program"

See this press release about this amicus brief.

Law Professors' Amicus Brief (Briffault) Filed in McComish Case

You can read it here.

"Opinion: Wisconsin Election Recall Reality Check"

Joshua Spivak has written this post for AOL News.

Reform Group Files Brief Opposing Cert. in Green Party Public Financing Case

See here.

Money May Not Talk, But It Can Get You to Take Its Phone Calls

Ouch.

"The Pursuit of Perfection: Congressional Power to Enforce the Reconstruction Amendments"

A. Christopher Bryant has written this article for the Houston Law Review.