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
Remedies: Examples & Explanations (Aspen Publishers, 3d ed. 2012)
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)
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)
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)
Excess of Democracy (Derek Muller)
Equal Vote (Dan Tokaji)
Federal Election Commission
The Fix (WaPo)
Initiative and Referendum Institute
Legal Theory (Larry Solum)
Mischiefs of Faction
The Monkey Cage
More Soft Money Hard Law (Bob Bauer
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 Commentaries and Op-Eds
The Supreme Court Gives States New Weapons in the Voting Wars, Daily Beast, June 17, 2013
It's About the Disclosure, Stupid: The larger failing behind the terrible IRS treatment of Tea Party groups, Slate, May 14, 2013
Same-Sex Marriage: Court on the Couch, Reuters Opinion, Mar. 26, 2013
The Voting Wars Within: Is the Justice Department Too Biased to Enforce the Voting Rights Act?, Slate, Mar. 18, 2013
Who Controls Voting Rights?, Reuters Opinion, Feb. 26, 2013
After Scalia: Don’t Give Up on Campaign Finance Reform, However Hopeless It Seems Now, Slate, Feb. 21, 2013
If the Court Strikes Down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Reuters Opinion, Jan. 30, 2013
Democrats, Don’t Freak Out! Why Fear that Republicans Will Gerrymander the Electoral College are Overblown, Slate, Jan. 25, 2013
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)
Read more opeds from 2006-2009, and these from 2010-2011.
Forthcoming Publications, Recent Articles, and Working Papers
Political Dysfunction and Constitutional Change, 86 Drake Law Review (forthcoming 2013) (symposium) (draft available)
Is “Dependence Corruption” Distinct from a Political Equality Argument for Campaign Finance Reform? A Reply to Professor Lessig, 12 Election Law Journal (forthcoming 2013)
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?, 74 Montana Law Review 53 (2013)
End of the Dialogue? Political Polarization, the Supreme Court, and Congress, 86 Southern California Law Review 205 (2013)
Fixing Washington, 126 Harvard Law Review 550 (2012)
What to Expect When You’re Electing: Federal Courts and the Political Thicket in 2012, Federal Lawyer, (2012)
Chill Out: A Qualified Defense of Campaign Finance Disclosure Laws in the Internet Age, 27 Journal of Law and Politics 557 (2012)
Lobbying, Rent Seeking, and the Constitution, 64 Stanford Law Review 191 (2012)
Anticipatory Overrulings, Invitations, Time Bombs, and Inadvertence: How Supreme Court Justices Move the Law, 61 Emory Law Journal 779 (2012)
Teaching Bush v. Gore as History, 56 St. Louis University Law Review 665 (2012) (symposium on teaching election law)
The Supreme Court’s Shrinking Election Law Docket: A Legacy of Bush v. Gore or Fear of the Roberts Court?, 10 Election Law Journal 325 (2011)
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)
Category Archives: recall elections
Recall Elections Blog: “Ozaukee County Circuit Judge Tom Wolfgram, a three-term incumbent who faced heavy criticism for signing the Scott Walker recall petitions lost to Joe Voiland. The vote was not close — Voiland garnered over 60%.”
“Washington: Federal Court uphold ruling that recalls are not covered by $800 campaign finance limit”
Recall Elections Blog: “A federal district court has ruled that recalls are different than regular elections for the purpose of the state’s $800 campaign finance donation limit. Here’s the press release from the Institute for Justice and here’s a copy of the decision.”
“Oregon: Clackamas County/County Clerk facing recall petitions after temporary worker accused of tampering with ballots’
“Kansas: Group starts collecting signatures for sure-to-not-reach-the-ballot Secretary of State recall”
“Texas: AG rules that signature petitions in Sinton recall must be made public, though allows addresses to be withheld”
Beth Garrett has posted this draft on SSRN (forthcoming, Minnesota Law Review). Here is the abstract:
In the ever-evolving jurisprudence of campaign finance, one principle has endured: the rules governing candidate elections are analyzed differently from the rules governing ballot measures because the latter elections have been found not to implicate the state’s legitimate interest in combatting quid pro quo corruption. It should now be apparent to even a casual observer of the initiative process, however, that candidates are very involved in ballot measures; they use initiatives to influence turnout in elections in which they are also running, and they resort to initiatives to adopt policy change they cannot enact through the traditional legislative system. The clear relationship between candidates and direct democracy is formally present in a context of growing salience: recalls. In this article, I use recall elections as a way to consider the current state of campaign finance jurisprudence as it relates to all the mechanisms of direct democracy; recalls provide a different framework to assess campaign finance rules because they are explicitly hybrid elections, combining a ballot question about the recall of an official and, sometimes simultaneously, the election of a successor. Part I will lay out the structure of the recall process, particularly in California and Wisconsin, the two states in which statewide recalls of governors have shaken the political establishment and caught the attention of the nation. Part II will analyze the constitutional issues raised by campaign finance regimes that include contribution limitations affecting recall elections, particularly in light of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Part III will extend this analysis and argue that the conclusions reached about permissible regulatory structures in the context of recalls implicate the way states and municipalities regulate money in ballot measure campaigns generally.
I read an earlier draft of this paper and highly recommend it. Beth’s statements about equality in campaign finance at the end of the paper are especially notable.
City Ethics: “Talk about independent expenditures usually refers to such expenditures in support, or more often in opposition to, federal candidates. At the local level, the major independent expenditures tend to come from unions, both public service unions and construction unions. There are also cases where independent expenditures come from contractors and others seeking direct benefits from the candidates they support or oppose. This can look very much like a payoff for favors done and/or for future favors, generally referred to as pay to play. One such case has arisen in Montebello, CA, a small city of 62,000. According to an article posted yesterday evening on the Whittier Daily News website, a company that had recently obtained a no-bid $150 million, 15-year refuse hauling contract gave “close to $353,000″ (or nearly $14 per registered voter) to a 2009 Say No on Recall campaign committee it created. Two of the council members were targeted for recall largely due to approval of the refuse contract. The small refuse companies that had formerly done the work provided most of the funding for the pro-recall committee, according to an article in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune.”
News from Wisconsin: ” County investigators have found no evidence of criminal activity after looking into claims of alleged voter fraud at Racine polling places during the June 5 recall election.”
More from AP.
This item appears at the Wisconsin Reporter.
“Wisconsin Autopsy: The Cognitive Dissonance polls and how Walker’s victory could actually help Obama in November”
The Wisconsin State Journal reports.
“A Signature reset: What is the signature requirement for a recall rerun? Does the recall reset it for every office in Wisconsin?”
Michael McDonald: “Does Scott Walker’s victory in the Wisconsin recall election mean that Wisconsin is now in play in the November presidential election? Short answer is no, for two reasons.”
WaPo: “While Democrats suffered a decisive defeat in Tuesday’s Wisconsin gubernatorial recall, they may have successfully taken control of the state Senate. Former state Sen. John Lehman (D) has declared victory over state Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine). The AP has not called the race yet, but with all precincts reporting Lehman leads by 779 votes. Wanggaard has not conceded.”
Exit polls have the Wisconsin governor’s recall race at 50-50 (anyone know if this includes absentees?). On the prayer, see here.
The Voting Wars starts with a race too close to call in Wisconsin.
UPDATE: Post-election litigation appears to be mercifully avoided, at least in the marquis race. Waiting to hear about control of the state senate.
Wow. The exit polling was really inaccurate. I wonder if this is the result of not including absentee or some larger problem with the exits.
In any case, quite a convincing victory for Walker and the Wisconsin Republicans. Those saying otherwise are lying or delusional. Election Administrator’s Prayer also answered. Pollster Accuracy Prayer will need more work.
Democrats are making noises about that, but let’s just hope it is not that close either way. And let’s especially hope Kathy Nickolaus does not have another snafu in vote counting.
UPDATE: More here on whether Nickolaus will step aside today.
The latest from Wisconsin.
NYT editorial: “As Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin faces a well deserved recall vote next month after stripping public unions of their bargaining rights, voters are discovering the generosity of Diane Hendricks. Ms. Hendricks, the billionaire chairwoman of the nation’s largest roofing and siding wholesaler, wrote a check for $500,000 last month to help defend Governor Walker, a Republican, against his Democratic challenger, Tom Barrett, the mayor of Milwaukee.”
An allegation with nothing to back it up. And note how it is always fraud which helps Democrats. What else is new?
This appears to be a big deal in the Wisconsin recall campaign.
“The Power of the Petition; How the effort to recall Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker could swing the 2012 presidential election.”
Sasha Issenberg at Slate: “But there’s a consolation for Republicans: They’re thrilled to get their hands on the petition documents, and the 900,039 names they believe will help them make sense of the state’s political geography on behalf of Mitt Romney this fall. Indeed, the boom in large-scale signature-gathering efforts—most visible in 16 different recall campaigns filed in Wisconsin over the past year, and similar efforts elsewhere in the Midwest—has fixed attention on a largely unmined source of political data that can help clarify fault lines in a difficult to gauge electorate. ‘They’ve just handed us the names of 900,000 people who are known, or are likely to be, anti-conservative voters. It’s a huge favor they’ve done.’ says Rick Wiley, the political director of the Republican National Committee, which has 22 offices open in Wisconsin coordinating anti-recall efforts. “Without it you were stuck with somehow IDing these voters.”
News from the Wisconsin recall.
One jurisdiction’s law.