Have a Comment?
Generously Supported By
ELB Feeds and Email Subscriptions
Books by Rick
The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown (Yale University Press, 2012)
The Voting Wars Website
NOW AVAILABLE from
Barnes and Noble
Election Law--Cases and Materials (5th edition 2012) (with Daniel Hays Lowenstein and Daniel P. Tokaji)
The Supreme Court and Election Law: Judging Equality from Baker v. Carr to Bush v. Gore (NYU Press 2003) NOW IN PAPER
Table of Contents
Order from Amazon.com
Order from BarnesandNoble.com
Journal of Legislation Symposium on book
The Glannon Guide to Torts: Learning Torts Through Multiple-Choice Questions and Analysis (Aspen Publishers 2d ed. 2011)
Remedies: Examples & Explanations (Aspen Publishers, 2d ed. 2010)
Election Law Resources
Blogroll/Political News Sites
All About Redistricting (Justin Levitt)
American Constitution Society
Ballot Access News
Brennan Center for Justice
The Brookings Institution's Campaign Finance Page
California Election Law (Randy Riddle)
Caltech-MIT/Voting Technology Project (and link to voting technology listserv)
The Caucus (NY Times)
Campaign Legal Center (Blog)
Campaign Finance Institute
Center for Competitive Politics (Blog)
Center for Governmental Studies
Doug Chapin (HHH program)
Equal Vote (Dan Tokaji)
Federal Election Commission
The Fix (WaPo)
Initiative and Referendum Institute
Legal Theory (Larry Solum)
Political Activity Law
Summary Judgments (Loyola Law faculty blog)
Talking Points Memo
UC Irvine Center for the Study of Democracy
UC Irvine School of Law
USC-Caltech Center for the Study of Law and Politics
The Volokh Conspiracy
Votelaw blog (Ed Still)
Washington Post Politics
Recent Newspapers and Magazine Commentaries
Big Money Lost, But Don't Be Relieved, CNN Opinion, Nov. 9, 2012
A Better Way to Vote: Nationalize Oversight and Control, NY Times, "Room for Debate" blog, Nov. 9, 2012
Election Day Dispatches Entry 5: Black Panthers, Navy Seals, and Mysterious Voting Machines, Slate, Nov. 6, 2012
Behind the Voting Wars, A Clash of Philosophies, Sacramento Bee, Nov. 4, 2012
How Many More Near-Election Disasters Before Congress Wakes Up?, The Daily Beast, Oct. 30, 2012
Will Bush v. Gore Save Barack Obama? If Obama Narrowly Wins Ohio, He Can Thank Scalia and the Court's Conservatives, Slate, Oct. 26, 2012
Will Voter Suppression and Dirty Tricks Swing the Election?, Salon, Oct. 22, 2012
Is the Supreme Court About to Swing Another Presidential Election? If the Court Cuts Early Voting in Ohio, It Could Be a Difference Maker in the Buckeye State, Slate, Oct. 15, 2012
Election Truthers: Will Republicans Accept an Obama Election Victory?, Slate, Oct. 9, 2012
Wrong Number: The Crucial Ohio Voting Battle You Haven't Heard About, Slate, Oct. 1, 2012
Litigating the Vote, National Law Journal, Aug. 27, 2012
Military Voters as Political Pawns, San Diego Union-Tribune, August 19, 2012
Tweeting the Next Election Meltdown: If the Next Presidential Election Goes into Overtime, Heaven Help Us. It’s Gonna Get Ugly, Slate, Aug. 14, 2012
A Detente Before the Election, New York Times, August 5, 2012
Worse Than Watergate: The New Campaign Finance Order Puts the Corruption of the 1970s to Shame, Slate, July 19, 2012
Has SCOTUS OK'd Campaign Dirty Tricks?, Politico, July 10, 2012
End the Voting Wars: Take our elections out of the hands of the partisan and the incompetent, Slate, June 13, 2012
Citizens: Speech, No Consequences, Politico, May 31, 2012
Is Campaign Disclosure Heading Back to the Supreme Court? Don’t expect to see Karl Rove’s Rolodex just yet, Slate, May 16, 2012
Unleash the Hounds Why Justice Souter should publish his secret dissent in Citizens United, Slate, May 16, 2012
Why Washington Can’t Be Fixed; And is about to get a lot worse, Slate, May 9, 2012
Let John Edwards Go! Edwards may be a liar and a philanderer, but his conviction will do more harm than good, Slate, April 23, 2012
The Real Loser of the Scott Walker Recall? The State of Wisconsin, The New Republic, April 13, 2012
A Court of Radicals: If the justices strike down Obamacare, it may have grave political implications for the court itself, Slate, March 30, 2012
Of Super PACs and Corruption, Politico, March 22, 2012
Texas Voter ID Law May Be Headed to the Supreme Court, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Mar. 13, 2012
“The Numbers Don’t Lie: If you aren’t sure Citizens United gave rise to the Super PACs, just follow the money, Slate, Mar. 9, 2012
Stephen Colbert: Presidential Kingmaker?, Politico, Mar. 5 2012
Occupy the Super PACs; Justice Ginsburg knows the Citizens United decision was a mistake. Now she appears to be ready to speak truth to power, Slate, Feb. 20, 2012
Kill the Caucuses! Maine, Nevada, and Iowa were embarrassing. It’s time to make primaries the rule, Slate, Feb. 15, 2012
The Biggest Danger of Super PACs, CNN Politics, Jan. 9, 2012
This Case is a Trojan Horse, New York Times "Room for Debate" blog, Jan. 6, 2012 (forum on Bluman v. FEC)
Holder's Voting Rights Gamble: The Supreme Court's Voter ID Showdown, Slate, Dec. 30, 2011
Will Foreigners Decide the 2012 Election? The Extreme Unintended Consequences of Citizens United, The New Republic (online), Dec. 6, 2011
Disenfranchise No More, New York Times, Nov. 17, 2011
A Democracy Deficit at Americans Elect?, Politico, Nov. 9, 2011
Super-Soft Money: How Justice Kennedy paved the way for ‘SuperPACS’ and the return of soft money, Slate, Oct. 25, 2012
The Arizona Campaign Finance Law: The Surprisingly Good News in the Supreme Court’s New Decision, The New Republic (online), June 27, 2011
New York City as a Model?, New York Times Room for Debate, June 27, 2011
A Cover-Up, Not a Crime. Why the Case Against John Edwards May Be Hard to Prove, Slate, Jun. 3, 2011
Wisconsin Court Election Courts Disaster, Politico, Apr. 11, 2011
Rich Candidate Expected to Win Again, Slate, Mar. 25, 2011
Health Care and the Voting Rights Act, Politico, Feb. 4, 2011
The FEC is as Good as Dead, Slate, Jan. 25, 2011
Let Rahm Run!, Slate, Jan. 24, 2011
Lobbypalooza,The American Interest, Jan-Feb. 2011(with Ellen P. Aprill)
Election Hangover: The Real Legacy of Bush v. Gore, Slate, Dec. 3, 2010
Alaska's Big Spelling Test: How strong is Joe Miller's argument against the Leeza Markovsky vote?, Slate, Nov. 11, 2010
Kirk Offers Hope vs. Secret Donors, Politico, November 5, 2010
Evil Men in Black Robes: Slate's Judicial Election Campaign Ad Spooktackular!, Slate, October 26, 2010 (with Dahlia Lithwick)
Show Me the Donors: What's the point of disclosing campaign donations? Let's review, Slate, October 14, 2010
Un-American Influence: Could Foreign Spending on Elections Really Be Legal?, Slate, October 11, 2010
Toppled Castle: The real loser in the Tea Party wins is election reform, Slate, Sept. 16, 2010
Citizens United: What the Court Did--and Why, American Interest, July/August 2010
The Big Ban Theory: Does Elena Kagan Want to Ban Books? No, and She Might Even Be a Free Speech Zealot", Slate, May 24, 2010
Crush Democracy But Save the Kittens: Justice Alito's Double Standard for the First Amendment, Slate, Apr. 30, 2010
Some Skepticism About the "Separable Preferences" Approach to the Single Subject Rule: A Comment on Cooter & Gilbert, Columbia Law Review Sidebar, Apr. 19, 2010
Scalia's Retirement Party: Looking ahead to a conservative vacancy can help the Democrats at the polls, Slate, Apr. 12, 2010
Hushed Money: Could Karl Rove's New 527 Avoid Campaign-Finance Disclosure Requirements?, Slate, Apr. 6, 2010
Money Grubbers: The Supreme Court Kills Campaign Finance Reform, Slate, Jan. 21, 2010
Bad News for Judicial Elections, N.Y. Times "Room for Debate" Blog, Jan., 21, 2010
Read more opeds from 2006-2009
Forthcoming Publications, Recent Articles, and Working Papers
The 2012 Voting Wars, Judicial Backstops, and the Resurrection of Bush v. Gore, George Washington Law Review (forthcoming 2013) (draft available)
A Constitutional Right to Lie in Campaigns and Elections?, Montana Law Review (forthcoming 2013) (draft available)
End of the Dialogue? Political Polarization, the Supreme Court, and Congress, 86 Southern California Law Review (forthcoming 2013) (draft available)
Fixing Washington, 126 Harvard Law Review (forthcoming 2012) (draf available)
What to Expect When You’re Electing: Federal Courts and the Political Thicket in 2012, Federal Lawyer, (forthcoming 2012)( draft available)
Chill Out: A Qualified Defense of Campaign Finance Disclosure Laws in the Internet Age, Journal of Law and Politics (forthcoming 2012) (draft available)
Lobbying, Rent Seeking, and the Constitution, 64 Stanford Law Review (forthcoming 2012) (draft available)
Anticipatory Overrulings, Invitations, Time Bombs, and Inadvertence: How Supreme Court Justices Move the Law, Emory Law Journal (forthcoming 2012) (draft available)
Teaching Bush v. Gore as History, St. Louis University Law Review (forthcoming 2012) (symposium on teaching election law) (draft available)
The Supreme Court’s Shrinking Election Law Docket: A Legacy of Bush v. Gore or Fear of the Roberts Court?, Election Law Journal (forthcoming 2011) (draft available)
Citizens United and the Orphaned Antidistortion Rationale, 27 Georgia State Law Review 989 (2011) (symposium on Citizens United)
The Nine Lives of Buckley v. Valeo, in First Amendment Stories, Richard Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, eds., Foundation 2011)
The Transformation of the Campaign Financing Regime for U.S. Presidential Elections, in The Funding of Political Parties (Keith Ewing, Jacob Rowbottom, and Joo-Cheong Tham, eds., Routledge 2011)
Judges as Political Regulators: Evidence and Options for Institutional Change, in Race, Reform and Regulation of the Electoral Process, (Gerken, Charles, and Kang eds., Cambridge 2011)
Citizens United and the Illusion of Coherence, 109 Michigan Law Review 581 (2011)
Aggressive Enforcement of the Single Subject Rule, 9 Election Law Journal 399 (2010) (co-authored with John G. Matsusaka)
The Benefits of the Democracy Canon and the Virtues of Simplicity: A Reply to Professor Elmendorf, 95 Cornell Law Review 1173 (2010)
Constitutional Avoidance and Anti-Avoidance on the Roberts Court, 2009 Supreme Court Review 181 (2010)
Election Administration Reform and the New Institutionalism, California Law Review 1075 (2010) (reviewing Gerken, The Democracy Index)
You Don't Have to Be a Structuralist to Hate the Supreme Court's Dignitary Harm Election Law Cases, 64 University of Miami Law Review 465 (2010)
The Democracy Canon, 62 Stanford Law Review 69 (2009)
Review Essay: Assessing California's Hybrid Democracy, 97 California Law Review 1501 (2009)
Bush v. Gore and the Lawlessness Principle: A Comment on Professor Amar, 61 Florida Law Review 979 (2009)
Introduction: Developments in Election Law, 42 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 565 (2009)
Book Review (reviewing Christopher P. Manfredi and Mark Rush, Judging Democracy (2008)), 124 Political Science Quarterly 213 (2009).
"Regulation of Campaign Finance," in Vikram Amar and Mark Tushnet, Global Perspectives on Constitutional Law (Oxford University Press (2009)
More Supply, More Demand: The Changing Nature of Campaign Financing for Presidential Primary Candidates (working paper, Sept. 2008)
When 'Legislature' May Mean More than''Legislature': Initiated Electoral College Reform and the Ghost of Bush v. Gore, 35 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 599 (2008) (draft available)
"Too Plain for Argument?" The Uncertain Congressional Power to Require Parties to Choose Presidential Nominees Through Direct and Equal Primaries, 102 Northwestern University Law Review 2009 (2008)
Political Equality, the Internet, and Campaign Finance Regulation, The Forum, Vol. 6, Issue 1, Art. 7 (2008)
Justice Souter: Campaign Finance Law's Emerging Egalitarian, 1 Albany Government Law Review 169 (2008)
Beyond Incoherence: The Roberts Court's Deregulatory Turn in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 92 Minnesota Law Review 1064 (2008) (draft available)
The Untimely Death of Bush v. Gore, 60 Stanford Law Review 1 (2007)
Author Archives: Rick Hasen
This is a new one for me:
A state Supreme Court justice in Westchester County has dismissed a charge of contempt that had been leveled against the Republican commissioner of the Dutchess County Board of Elections by his Democratic counterpart.
In an order signed Wednesday, Judge Robert DiBella ruled Erik Haight’s decision to have a stack of voter registration forms investigated by the Dutchess County Sheriff’s Office did not violate a previous legal agreement that requires both commissioners to act together on elections-related matters.
The charge of contempt was brought by Democratic Commissioner Fran Knapp. She contended that by calling the Sheriff’s Office without consulting her, Haight was in contempt of the court-ordered agreement.
DiBella ruled that because the agreement did not expressly prohibit either commissioner from unilaterally calling police to investigate a stack of possibly altered forms, neither civil nor criminal contempt apply.
“Interstate vote fraud: 2-state cases attract limelight; Secretary of State says it’s ‘not an epidemic’”
Gary Bass and Beth Kingsley have written this oped in the Washington Post:
The IRS’s improper scrutiny of conservative groups’ applications for tax-exempt status certainly warrants investigation. But we must not lose sight of the underlying problems that led to this situation: the lack of workable standards to determine what activity the Internal Revenue Service considers “political” and how much of it a nonprofit group can do….
Much of this problem could be addressed by adopting objective, substantive criteria to define political intervention for nonprofit organizations. For the past four years, we have worked with legal experts and nonprofit leaders at the Bright Lines Project (now housed at Public Citizen) to develop just such a proposal.
Mayoral candidate Mike Duggan was certified Thursday to run for mayor by the city’s election commission, but the controversy continues over whether he met City Charter residency requirements….
But Duggan’s attorney, Melvin “Butch” Hollowell, said he was pleased with Thursday’s ruling and he’s not concerned about a possible legal challenge. If there is ambiguity over the interpretation over the charter, “you resolve that in favor of letting the people decide (and) giving access to the ballot,” he said.
I haven’t seen the papers in th is case, but it looks like Mr. Hollowell is making reference to the “Democracy Canon,” which I explained and defended in this Stanford Law Review article.
*(H/t Sam Bagenstos)
“What I fear is the majority leader is working his way toward breaking his word to the Senate and to the American people, and blowing up this institution…He wants to have no debate…Do what I say when I say it. Sit down, shut up. Or we’ll change the rules. We’ll break the rules to change the rules.’
–Sen. Mitch McConnell, on Senator Harry Reid’s threats to change the rules related to filibustering nominations in the Senate.
Here’s one I missed:
Janai Nelson was included in the Lawyers of Color 50 under 50 list (most influential minority law professors aged 50 or younger) and is the recipient of the 2013 Derrick A. Bell Award from the American Association of Law Schools (AALS) Section on Minority Groups. The award is presented each year to a junior faculty member who has made an extraordinary contribution through scholarship, teaching, and mentoring. She was also granted tenure and promoted to full professor at St. John’s University School of Law. Most recently, she was appointed the law school’s Associate Dean of Faculty Scholarship.
WaPo: “Ken Corbin, who was deputy director of a larger unit of the IRS, will be taking Lerner’s place, according to internal communications.”
NYT: “Lawmakers from both parties said Thursday that senior I.R.S. officials had requested Ms. Lerner’s resignation but that she refused, forcing them to put her on leave instead. Whether her suspension will lead to dismissal was unclear, given Civil Service rules that govern federal employment.”
Secretary of State Gessler filed paperwork to run for governor on Thursday, two days after reimbursing the state nearly $1,300 for a political trip to Florida last year.
His political director, Rory McShane, said Gessler’s decision to reimburse the money — which led to an ethics complaint against the Republican office-holder — has nothing do with his election plans.
IRS employees who review applications for exemption have a duty to ask follow-up questions of applicants, including groups affiliated with the tea party. In the current controversy, IRS reviewers wrongly singled out conservative groups for unusually exacting follow-up. In a number of these cases, they also asked inappropriate questions, such as the identity of donors.
Some media reports, however, imply that the IRS cannot and should not ask any questions of applicants for exemption, that any inquiry invades privacy and violates the First Amendment. That implication is wrong. An organization that seeks an IRS acknowledgment of its exempt status subjects itself to scrutiny — scrutiny designed to ensure that the group in fact qualifies for the benefit of tax exemption.
See here. You wouldn’t know it if you listened to the partisan media.
Norm Ornstein opinion piece for National Journal, with the subhead: “The IRS scandal evolved from the broader reality that the GOP has changed its financing mantra from ‘disclosure’ to ‘secrecy.’”
Here’s my yearly roundup of election law academic hires, promotions moves, visits, accolades.
Mark Alexander, Guy Charles, Kareem Crayton, Spencer Overton, and Ciara Torres-Spelliscy were included in the Lawyers of Color 50 under 50 list (most influential minority law professors aged 50 or younger) .
Chris Elmendorf, on sabbatical from UC Davis next year, will be a Visiting Scholar at UC Berkeley’s Institute for Governmental Studies, and the Center for the Study of Law and Society.
Amber Maltbie is teaching Election Law as an adjunct at the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law in the Spring.
Michael McDonald and Micah Altman received the Tides Foundation Pizzigati Prize, Strata Data Innovation Award, and APSA ITP Research Software award for their work on the DistrictBuilder open redistricting system.
Dave Primo was named the Ani and Mark Gabrellian Professor at the University of Rochester.
Teddy Rave has accepted a tenure track teaching postion at Houston Law.
Joshua Ian Rosenstein is adjunct in the Election Law Program at William & Mary Law, where he is teaching a course on lobbying law called The Regulation of Advocacy.
Brad Smith will hold the Visiting Judge T. Copenhaver Chair of Law at West Virginia University in 2013-14.
Doug Spencer has accepted a tenure track teaching position at U. Conn Law.
Matt Streb has been promoted for full professor at NIU.
The links between a nonprofit promoting President Obama’s healthcare law and the White House have created an “air of expectation” that insurers will contribute to the group, according to an insurance industry official.
Current and former administration officials have taken on leadership and fundraising roles for Enroll America, a nonprofit aiming to make sure people sign up for new coverage options. As the ties grow deeper, the organization has come to feel like “just an arm of the administration,” said one official who works closely with insurers.
Gov. Rick Scott has finished the fix of the flawed election law that relegated Florida to a late-night joke in 2012 by signing an elections clean-up bill passed on the final day of the legislative session.
The measure, signed by Scott late Monday before he left for a trade mission to Chile, reverses several provisions implemented in 2011 by GOP lawmakers in anticipation of the 2012 presidential election.
Those changes, criticized by Democrats as an attempt to suppress votes for President Barack Obama, limited the early voting that the president’s campaign capitalized on in 2008. The 2011 law also prevented early voting on the Sunday before Election Day and prohibited voters, particularly students, from changing their voting address at the polls.
Orlando Sentinel: “A divided appeals court ruled Wednesday that Florida legislators should not be questioned under oath about whether they ‘intended’ to gain partisan advantage when they re-drew congressional maps last year.”
Sen. John McCain finds himself once again pushing his colleagues to avoid giving fodder to Democrats seeking to use the “nuclear option” to change Senate rules with a simple majority.
The Arizona Republican’s latest endeavor is to persuade GOP senators to allow the appointment of conferees to hammer out a House- Senate budget agreement without binding instructions against raising the debt limit.
But his efforts have yet to win over the GOP’s tea party wing.
TPM: “The battle over the filibuster escalated Wednesday as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) jumped in the fray to lash Democrats’ threats to use the “nuclear option” to scrap the minority party’s ability to filibuster presidential nominees to cabinet and judicial positions. He and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) clashed in a heated floor exchange that led to hours of sniping between their offices.
The Boy Scouts of America will open itself to a “veritable Pandora’s box of litigation” if it allows homosexual boys to be scouts, warns a veteran Supreme Court litigator and special counsel to the Republican National Committee.
In a letter to each of the 1,400 scout leaders expected to vote finally on Thursday on a proposed change to the organization’s longstanding ban on gay boy scouts, prominent conservative lawyer James Bopp Jr. contends the change would undermine protections provided by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 2000 decision.
Today we publish a commentary by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), arguing against legislation to require expanded campaign finance disclosure. The senator points to the current furor over how the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) mishandled applications from tea party and other conservative groups for tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. We certainly agree with him that the IRS failed to meet basic standards of fairness in selectively pressing the groups for more information and in delaying their applications.
Mr. McConnell writes that the IRS scandal shows that political donors must be protected from possible “intimidation” by the government, that Washington is out to “target people because of their beliefs.” This is an awfully dark view of national government under any administration. Such practices are common in other countries but not in the United States. The IRS failure was an exception, and a bad one, but not the rule.
Andy Kroll writes for Mother Jones.
Buzzfeed reports. Last night I asked on Twitter how long it would be before pundits would start calling for Ruemmler to step aside.
Now the answer is clear: not long.
Facing a backlog of proposals to update its regulations and policies but apparently unable to reach consensus on any of them, the Federal Election Commission is not even holding regular open meetings as frequently as it did in previous years. The latest example came May 22, when the FEC cancelled its scheduled open meeting set for May 23. The meeting was still on the agency’s calendar until a last-minute notice was posted on the FEC website announcing that the session was cancelled. No meeting agenda had been posted, and there were no obvious agenda items for agency action.
This is deadlock by design. The FEC: Stlll as Good as Dead.®
IRS employees who sent overly detailed questionaires to some groups applying for tax-exempt status in recent years used words like “tea party” and “patriot” to try to filter out those that planned to be heavily involved in politics (a big no-no).
As it turns out, not only was that improper; it’s not even very effective. For instance, two liberal groups that have faded in and out of the political scene mysteriously and repeatedly over several years bear names that few would associate, at first glance, with progressive causes: Citizens for Strength and Security, and Patriot Majority.
Sen. Mitch McConnell writes a WaPo oped, attacking not just the IRS, and not just the DISCLOSE Act, but the very concept of disclosure.
Sad for a Senator who used to be a strong supporter of disclosure as an alternative to limits on campaign money.