More on the meaning of the summary affirmance in Larios

Over on the election law listserv, Rick Pildes argues here that we should read "Larios as holding that systematic partisan gerrymandering is an impremissible purpose under the Equal Protection Clause, pure and simple." Rick further reads into the summary affirmance a view of Vieth at odds with what the Court actually did in the case a mere two months ago. Rick writes: "What does this suggest about Vieth? Most obviously, if partisan gerrymandering is not a legitimate purpose or rational basis here, it is also not one in the normal context in which plaintiffs bring affirmative challenges to districting plans. To the extent Vieth left this unclear, it now seems that most of the Court takes systematic partisan gerrymandering to be not just illegitimate and unconstitutional, but a serious constitutional problem; the difficulty in the Vieth context really is one of managable remedies, not a debate about whether partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional. "

I think that Rick reads too much into the summary affirmance. (And J.J. Gass agrees: see here, noting that if Rick is right, the Texas case should be reversed rather easily.)

In Illinois Elections Board v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173 (1979), the Court explained the reach of a summary affirmance (internal citations omitted):

[T]he precedential effect of a summary affirmance can extend no farther than "the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." A summary disposition affirms only the judgment of the court below, and no more may be read into our action than was essential to sustain that judgment. Questions which "merely lurk in the record" are not resolved, and no resolution of them may be inferred.

In this case, the only issue necessarily decided here was that the 10% deviation was too much under the facts of the case. The Court may now simply agree, consistent with other lower court cases as well, such as the 4th Circuit's Daly v. Hunt, that the state needs to come up with some good reasons for deviating from perfect equality even for state and local districts.

If Rick is right about the meaning of the summary affirmance, we would have expected the Chief Justices and Justices O'Connor and Thomas to joint Justice Scalia in dissent. Their failure to do so suggests that they do not see Larios as implicitly overruling Vieth, at least in those cases where there is a manageable rule to control partisan gerrymandering. (Of course, while one person, one vote is a manageable rule, I don't concede that it is a manageable rule to control partisan gerrymandering).

UPDATE: Rick Pildes responds here.

What Does Today's Summary Affirmance in Larios v. Cox mean?

Today the Supreme Court summarily affirmed a three judge panel decision in Larios v. Cox, 300 F.Supp.2d 1320 (N.D. Ga. 2004) (three judge court) striking down, on one person, one vote grounds, Georgia's newest districting plan for its state House of Representatives and Senate.

In Reynolds v. Sims (1964), the Supreme Court had held that under the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, state legislative districts need to be of roughly equal size under what is now known as the one, person, one vote principle. Cases subsequent to Reynolds have allowed for some deviation from strict population in state and local redistricting; in contrast, the rule for Congressional districting is that essentially exact population equality in districts is required.

As I explained here, the Supreme Court had appeared to indicate that when a state legislative districting plan deviates from perfect population equality by less than 10%, the state did not need to come up for any justification for the deviation. (Under the same precedent, deviations of between 10-17% were sometimes allowed when there was a good reason for the deviation). In Larios, following the decisions of a few other lower courts (cited in my blog post), the three-judge court struck down a districting plan on one person, one vote grounds, even though the deviations were under 10%. The lower court pointed to what it saw as essentially a partisan gerrymander: Republicans were being packed into districts to help Democrats. (The court also said the redistricting was meant to favor rural and inner-city interests over that of suburban Atlanta.)

The Supreme Court's summary affirmance today in Larios supports the result in the lower court, but not necessarily its reasoning. Thus, the case stands for the proposition that there is no 10% safe harbor any longer; state and local redistricting plans can be struck down even if the deviations are under 10%.

Underlying this case is the Court's continued disagreement about how, if at all, to regulate partisan gerrymandering. In the Court's recent Vieth v. Jubelirer decision, the Court rejected a partisan gerrymandering claim in ways that make such a claim very difficult to bring. (See here). As Justice Scalia explains in his dissent from the summary affirmance, Larios raised the question whether "a districting plan that satisfies this 10% criterion may nevertheless be invalidated on the basis of circumstantial evidence of partisan political motivation." Justice Scalia wanted to set this case for argument precisely to reject the idea that partisan political motivation could be a basis for striking down a districting plan on one person, one vote grounds. This is consistent with his view in his Vieth plurality opinion that partisan gerrymandering itself cannot violate the Equal Protection Clause in a way that Courts can police.

In his concurrence joined by Justice Breyer, Justice Stevens (a Veith dissenter) makes the point plain: he wants to tighten up the one person, one vote standard as a way to police partisan gerrymandering: "After our recent opinion in Vieth..., the equal-population principle remains the only clear limitation on improper redistricting practices, and we must be careful not to dilute its strength." Justice Stevens then went on to say, even though the issue was not raised by appellants in Larios, that the districting plan constitutes an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander under both Justice Stevens standard and Justice Breyer's standards in Vieth.

What to make of all of this? In the first place, strict application of the one person, one vote rule will do very little to control partisan manipulation of district lines. Just consider that not only the Pennsylvania case, but also the notorious Texas re-redistricting, perfectly complied with the one person, one vote standard. They had to because they involved congressional districts. This just makes partisan gerrymanders a bit harder to do.

Second, there are serious costs to eliminating the 10% safe harbor. Strict application of the one person, one vote rule on the local level will make it harder for districters to stick to city or county lines, or to define community of interests, in a reasonable way. Precise equality in many ways is a myth anyway (because of the inclusion of non-voters, census problems, people moving, etc.). A stricter reading of the principle will hamstring districters attempting to keep cities etc. intact in districting and accomplish very little good.

What to make of the votes here? Why did those in the Vieth plurality and Justice Kennedy not vote to set this for argument? Justice O'Connor, for example, concurred in Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835 (1983), upholding an 83% deviation in one Wyoming district. I don't know. One possibility is that if Justice Kennedy was willing to uphold this, the other members of the Vieth plurality did not want to endanger that precedent by having Justice Kennedy rethink his opinion on partisan gerrymandering, given the ambivalence he expressed in his Vieth opinion.

Update: I am posting additional comments sent to me below.

Renea Hicks writes:

I don't think it's accurate to state, as you do in your latest post on the implications of Larios, that using one person, one vote principles to police partisan gerrymandering won't mean anything for the Texas cases because Texas fully met the one person, one vote standard. Texas used the uncorrected 2000 census numbers, even though the redistricting was: (1) entirely voluntary; and (2) nearly two years after those numbers were released at sufficiently detailed geographic levels to be used in redistricting. The Supreme Court has never said that there is a constitutional link between official census numbers and the one person, one vote rule. In fact, in Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, it said that mid-decade updates could be used if they met a high evidentiary burden of accuracy. And Georgia v. Ashcroft acknowledges the legal fiction of inter-censal population accuracy in the census. That fiction exists for only one reason: to avoid the constitutional necessity of frequent redistricting. Texas seeks to use the fiction here to PERMIT frequent redistricting.

On behalf of a voter (a former mayor of Austin) and the City of Austin and Travis County (of which Austin in the county seat), we've argued in our appeal to the Supreme Court (03-1400) that Texas violated one person, one vote by relying exclusively on the fiction in the course of redistricting for what it admits is only one purpose: partisan advantage. In that situation, we say, the one person, one vote principle IS violated by Texas which could have (under Kirkpatrick v. Preisler) proved up a non-stale set of numbers but deliberately chose not to. This seems to fit precisely with Justice Stevens' observation that the one person, one vote principle should not be diluted in the face of partisan redistricting but, if anything, enhanced as a check on a runaway system.

Thanks for writing.

" Civil Rights Groups Issue Report on Electronic Voting Security"

Yesterday, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the Brennan Center for Justice released this report on improving the security of electronic voting systems for the 2004 elections. Dan Tokaji has a link to the report, and his own comments, here.

Larios

Tom Goldstein is reporting:
"Here is today's Orders List. What is not reflected on that list is that the Court in Cox summarily affirmed, with a concurring opinion by Justice Stevens (joined by Justice Breyer) and a dissenting opinion by Justice Scalia." More soon.

UPDATE: The Scalia dissent is here. The Stevens/Breyer concurrence is here.

"Only Money: Campaign Finance Reform Bites Supporters in the Rear"

Reason Online offers this report.

"Senate Hopeful Finances Her Own Bid"

The St. Petersburg Times offers this report.

Treglia Named to L.A. Ethics Commission

Those of you who know Sean Treglia from his days at Pew working on campaign finance issues may be interested in his recent appointment to the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission. See here.

"Parties Hoover Up the Money"

The Hill offers this report, which begins: " The Republican and Democratic national parties have defied predictions that they would crumble in the aftermath of campaign-finance reform, in part by slashing the signature perks of the soft-money era. Shattering expectations widely held as recently as this year, the six national Republican and Democratic party committees are raising more hard money than they raised hard and soft money combined during the last presidential election cycle, 1999-2000."

See also this Campaigns and Elections report (link via Politicalwire.com).

"Watchdog Group Complains About Nader Aid"

A.P. offers this report.

"G.O.P. Accuses Group of Fund-Raising Scam"

A.P. offers this report, which begins: "The Republican National Committee filed a complaint Tuesday accusing a Texas group of posing as a GOP organization to raise money by phone using an Indian telemarketing firm and through fund-raising mailings."

"Kerry Has to Decide Soon About Repaying Big Loan"

The New York Times offers this report, which begins: "Among the many strategic decisions facing Senator John Kerry in the coming weeks, one may hit closer to home than others, whether to use campaign contributions to repay the $6.4 million that he lent his campaign or pay it off over time using his own money." UPDATE: The Los Angeles Times offers this report.

New paper on racial gerrymandering claims

Ethan Leib has posted on SSRN Ugly White Districts: What Should Sandy Do?. Here is the abstract:

A case just decided by a three-judge panel in the Southern District of New York, where plaintiffs challenge the 2002 New York State Senate redistricting plan, presents a new kind of redistricting challenge. See Rodriguez v. Pataki, 2004 WL 503748 (S.D.N.Y.). Rodriguez raises the issue of what to do about bizarrely-shaped white districts that are constructed or preserved using race as an obvious motivation - apparently in violation of Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), which held ugly black districts to be violative of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause - but are adjacent to majority-minority districts that must be preserved in accordance with both Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the laws forbidding dilution and retrogression of majority-minority districts. Here, I ask what Justice Sandra Day O'Connor should do about unsightly majority white districts that are drawn principally to maintain white majorities, even if such districts also help fashion adjacent majority-minority districts required by the Voting Rights Act.

Election Law Teacher Database - Version 1

You will find here a database of election law teachers. If you submitted information to me, please check the database to make sure your information was accurately recorded. After I give time for some corrections, I'll post a revised version, and then link to it on the side of the blog. I'll try to keep this updated regularly. Thanks to all who contributed information.

"Small Donors Equal Big Bucks for State Party Coffers"

Stateline.org offers this report (link via Politicalwire.com).

"Nader's 'Illegal' GOP Backers"

Joe Conason offers this Salon.com column, with the following subhead: "Right-wing groups -- and Bush-Cheney '04 -- may have violated federal campaign law to help get Ralph Nader on the ballot in Oregon." The allegation is that conservative 501(c)(4)s, at the urging of Bush-Cheney '04, have been making phone calls to get Republicans to sign on to get Nader on the ballot in Oregon.

Review of My Book and Karlan on Structuralism

Henry Flores reviews my book, The Supreme Court and Election Law, at this link for the Law and Politics Book Review.

I won't comment on the merit of the review, other than to note that it incorrectly states that in chapter 5 of the book I criticize "Professor Paula [sic] Karlan" for her structuralist views. In that chapter, I do note that Pam Karlan has characterized Shaw v. Reno and Bush v. Gore as cases where the Supreme Court focused more on the structure and function of the political process than on traditional notions of individual or group equality. But Pam hardly endorses this development. (Pam was also incorrectly attacked as a structuralist by Larry Tribe in his Harvard Law Review article on Bush v. Gore.) Most of my criticism in Chapter 5 is of the structuralist work of Pam's casebook co-authors, Sam Issacharoff and Rick Pildes.

Bush to Be on Illinois Ballot

See here.

"Are Fahrenheit 9/11 Commercials Campaign Ads?

Peter Overby of NPR offers this Politically Speaking column.

"The Republican South"

Princeton University Press has issued this new book from David Lublin. Here is the announcement:

This comprehensive and in-depth look at southern politics in the United States challenges conventional notions about the rise of the Republican Party in the South. David Lublin argues that the evolution of southern politics must be seen as part of a process of democratization of the region's politics. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 provided a sharp jolt forward in this process by greatly expanding the southern electorate.

Nevertheless, Democrats prevented Republicans from capitalizing rapidly on these changes. The overwhelming dominance of the region's politics by Democrats and their frequent adoption of conservative positions made it difficult for the GOP to attract either candidates or voters in many contests. However, electoral rules and issues gradually propelled the Democrats to the Left and more conservative white voters and politicians into the arms of the Republican Party.

Surprisingly, despite the racial turmoil of the civil rights era, economic rather than racial issues first separated Democrats from Republicans. Only later did racial and social issues begin to rival economic questions as a source of partisan division and opportunity for Republican politicians.

David Lublin is Associate Professor of Government in the School of Public Affairs at American University. He is the author of The Paradox of Representation: Racial Gerrymandering and Minority Interests in Congress (Princeton).

Waiting for Larios

The waiting will be a bit longer. Tom Goldstein reports: "The current best estimate for the Court's final orders list of the term is Wednesday morning at 10 a.m." And of course there is no guarantee the Court will rule on the case Wednesday If not, it may not be until October before we know what the Court will do.

Larios

Larios is not on today's order list. UPDATE: Tom Goldstein reports here that after the Court issues its two remaining opinions in cases tomorrow, it will hold a conference to discuss cases that are relisted. Tom includes Larios on that list. He predicts an order (perhaps in Larios) tomorrow afternoon after the conference.

NY Post Reverses Course

Backing off an editorial I linked to here, today's New York Post offers Muzzling Michael Moore, calling the earlier editorial "whimsical[]" and not "serious."

"'Outside' Political Groups Full of Party Insiders"

USA Today offers this report.

"Too Much Guesswork in Campaign Finance in Texas"

Ed Shack offers this oped in the Houston Chronicle.

"In Politics, the Rise of the Small Donor"

The Christian Science Monitor offers this report.

"Movie Tests a Campaign Rule"

The Boston Globe offers this report.

"Nader Plays Down Green Party Rebuff"

The Washington Post offers this report.

More on Larios

Following up on my prediction that the Supreme Court will note probable jurisdiction in Larios, SCOTUSBlog's Tom Goldstein predicts a summary reversal.

California Fair Political Practices Commission Adopts Contribution Limits for Ballot Measure Committees Controlled By Candidates and Officeholders

I just received the following press release from the Center for Governmental Studies:

Campaign Finance eBulletin

California Adopts Pioneering Campaign Finance Reform at Urging of CGS, Others

CA Becomes First State in U.S. to Limit Contributions to Ballot Measure Committees Controlled By Candidates and Officeholders

California’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) adopted a regulation today, at the urging of the Center for Governmental Studies and others, to close the legal loophole which Governor Schwarzenegger and other officeholders have used to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars in excess of state contribution limits. The new regulation applies the state’s candidate contribution limits to ballot measure committees controlled by candidates and officeholders. Prior to today’s FPPC action, candidates and officeholders were allowed to raise funds in excess of state limits, so long as these contributions were deposited into a ballot measure committee.

Since voters approved Proposition 34 in 2000, California law has limited contributions to candidates for governor to $21,200 per election. Nevertheless, Governor Schwarzenegger has received more than 150 contributions in excess of $21,200 (including several $250,000 contributions) since taking office, depositing these contributions into ballot measure committees he controls. These contributions had been deemed legal by the FPPC because the FPPC had interpreted the state’s $21,200 limit to apply only to money raised and spent for candidate elections—not ballot measure elections. On Friday, the FPPC closed this loophole and became the first state in the nation to limit contributions to ballot measure committees controlled by candidates. The Governor’s fundraising in excess of state contribution limits has now been terminated!

CGS Political Reform Project Director Paul S. Ryan authored a letter to the FPPC in April urging the adoption of this regulation and setting forth the supporting legal argument. Ryan’s letter was cited by Commissioner Downey at the April meeting for its “impressive, simple proposition that the threat of real or apparent corruption depended entirely on the candidate’s receipt of unlimited contributions, not on a candidate’s use of such contributions.” Ryan authored a second letter to the FPPC prior to Friday’s meeting and also testified at the meeting. CGS is pleased to have played a role in enacting this far reaching campaign finance reform in California and will continue advocating the adoption of this reform by local and state governments across the nation.

For more information, contact Paul Ryan, pryan@cgs.org or (310) 470-6590, ext. 115.

Will the Court Set Larios v. Cox for Argument?

I will go out on a limb and predict that the Supreme Court agrees on Monday to hear Larios v. Cox on the merits. Larios involves (among other questions) whether a state needs to come up with a justification when its state legislative districting plan has population deviations under 10%. The rule from Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973) appeared to be that the state did not need to come up with any justification for under 10% deviations, but lower courts have been increasingly asking for justifications. See, for example, Daly v. Hunt, 93 F.3d 1212, 1220 (4th Cir. 1996), Hulme v. Madison County, 188 F.Supp.2d 1041 (S.D. Ill. 2001), Montiel v. Davis, 215 F. Supp. 2d 1279 (S.D. Ala. 2002). (The rule is different for congressional districts, where mathematical equality is the rule.)

The Court has relisted the case for conference a few times (see here), and we may know something Monday. The last time we saw such a relisting was in the Colorado case, where three Justices dissented from the denial of cert. We could see a dissent from a summary affirmance here, but I think there is a fair chance the Justices will want to take this case to stop this increased litigation over relatively minor deviations from population equality.

I don't think this issue is nearly as important as the partisan gerrymandering issue in Vieth and in the pending Texas case (nothing likely on that case before October), but I could see good reason for the Court to get involved here.

Light Blogging Next Week; Blogging Hiatus in August

Next week, as I read the page proofs for the forthcoming third edition of the Election law casebook that I edit with Dan Lowenstein, blogging will be light.

For the month of August, I will be out of the country. I'll suspend blogging (and news of the day posting to the election law listserv) until September.

Torricelli Redux?

With news that Republican U.S. Senate candidate from Illinois Jack Ryan may withdraw from the race over a sex scandal, there is already talk of replacing him. A.P. reports: "The GOP cannot force Ryan off the ballot. But if he drops out before Aug. 27, the party can put up a new candidate." I have not looked at Illinois law, but readers may recall a controversy over interpretation of a New Jersey law for replacing Senate candidates that came into play when Robert Torrecelli withdrew from the race late in the game.

"Massachusetts Politicians Fight Over a Kerry Victory"

The New York Times offers this report over how a successor for John Kerry would be chosen for the Senate should Kerry be elected president.

Michael Moore on the FEC Complaint Against Him

"That's the difference between our side and their side. Even when we disagree, we're respectful of freedom of speech," he said. "But when they disagree, they try to shut you down. Well it's un-American. And it's wrong, and people are not going to stand for it. People in this country don't like to be told they can't watch something or see something."---See this Washington Post report. Variety also offers this report (paid subscription required). UPDATE: You can access the Variety article without charge here.

Complaint Against "Fahrenheit 9/11" Now Posted

See here. For additional documents, see here. Thanks to Joe Birkenstock for the pointer.

"FEC Declines to Rule on Filmmaker Exemption"

Roll Call offers this breaking news report (paid registration required), which begins: "As critics stepped up their efforts to discredit Michael Moore’s controversial documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11,” the Federal Election Commission declined to rule on whether documentary films qualify for a journalistic exemption from laws designed to regulate campaign advertisements and other types of electioneering."

FEC Ducks Media Exemption Question

Following up on this post, Bob Bauer reports here that the FEC has deleted the discussion of the media exemption from the advisory opinion under consideration today.

"Bush '04 Slams Donor Story"

Roll Call offers this report (paid subscription required), which begins:

President Bush’s re-election campaign Wednesday dismissed as “completely inaccurate” a report that it has mounted an effort to steer soft-money contributions to state GOP parties in order to counter Democratic-leaning “527” groups.

Bush-Cheney campaign officials confirmed they are encouraging their donors to support get-out-the-vote efforts by contributing hard money directly to the Republican National Committee and state GOP parties. The RNC hopes to raise roughly $50 million in hard money for GOTV activities at the state level this cycle, according to GOP sources.

But the Bush-Cheney campaign said the assertion that anyone with direct ties to the campaign was involved in any activities relating to soft money, including soliciting, steering, directing or encouraging such contributions to state GOP parties, was “totally false.”

“The factual representations in the article, the basic premise of the article, are flawed beyond comprehension and dead wrong,” said Ben Ginsberg, counsel to the Bush-Cheney ’04 campaign. Ginsberg was referring to a story in Wednesday’s edition of Roll Call. That article said Bush Cheney ’04 officials — through outside fundraisers — had asked wealthy Republicans to give soft money to state GOP parties.

“As a matter of law, people on the campaign or associated with the campaign or agents of the campaign can’t raise [soft] money for state parties, so we don’t,” Ginsberg said.

"Nader: Go to My Rallies, But Vote for Kerry"

NPR offers this audio report.

"Fahrenheit 9/11 Ban? Ads for Moore's Movie Could Be Stopped on June 30"

The Hill offers this report, which begins: "Michael Moore may be prevented from advertising his controversial new movie, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” on television or radio after July 30 if the Federal Election Commission (FEC) today accepts the legal advice of its general counsel. At the same time, a Republican-allied 527 soft-money group is preparing to file a complaint against Moore’s film with the FEC for violating campaign-finance law."

It is not clear to me that the general counsel's draft, if adopted, would directly affect Moore. In footnote 4 of the draft, the makers of the documentary in question did not claim a right under the media exemption, nor did they appear to ask for an exception to the electionnering communications rules that the FEC may give under 2 USC 434(f)(3)(B)(iv). So Moore will have some room to argue regardless of what happens at the FEC today.

"O'Connor Not Confined By Conservatism"

USA Today offers this report, which notes the following of interest to election law: "During the past six months, O'Connor was the only justice who was in the majority to uphold the new campaign-finance law (a move that infuriated conservatives) and in the majority to prevent voting rights lawsuits against partisan gerrymanders (a move that irritated liberals)." Of course, in the latter case, there was no majority opinion.

Group Files FEC Complaint Against Michael Moore's new film

Here is the press release. If anyone has a copy of the complaint, please e-mail it, or a link, to me, and I'll post it here as an update.
UPDATE: I have been informed that the complaint against Moore was not in fact filed today.

In the election law mailbag

I received the following reprints recently:

David S. Gamage, Note, Taxing Political Donations: The Case for Corrective Taxes in Campaign Finance, 113 Yale L.J. 1283 (2004).

Craig Holman, The Bipartisan Campagn Reform Act: Limits and Opportunities for Non-Profit Groups in Federal Elections, 31 Northern Kentucky Law Review 243 (2004) [the Holman article is part of a symposium also featuring artiles by Kenneth D. Katkin, James Bopp. Jr. & Richard E. Coleson, and Edward B. Foley]

Daniel P. Tokaji, First Amendment Equal Protection: In Discretion, Inequality, and Participation, 101 Michigan Law Review 2409 (2003).

More Bad Press for Americans Coming Together

A.P. offers Felons Paid in Voter Registration Drive. The lead: "A Democratic group crucial to John Kerry's presidential campaign has paid felons - some convicted of sex offenses, assault and burglary - to conduct door-to-door voter registration drives in at least three election swing states." A key sentence: "Felons on probation or parole are ineligible to vote in many states. Doug Lewis, executive director of the Election Center, which represents election officials, said he is unaware of any laws against felons registering other people to vote."

"Money-Raising Law Confuses Campaigns"

The Palm Beach Post offers this report, which begins: New federal election laws intended to help candidates compete against millionaire opponents spending their own money are proving confusing, unworkable and potentially detrimental to Florida's U.S. Senate campaign. Even officials with the Federal Election Commission acknowledge that the laws are too complex and leave too many questions unanswered." Thanks to Dan Smith for the pointer.

"Kerry's Fundraising Gives Bush a Run for His Money"

NPR offers this audio report.

"Bill Aims to Deny Appointee Kerry Post"

The Boston Globe offers this report. Thanks to Bill McGeveran for the pointer.

"Bush v. Gore Could Happen Again"

Thomas E. Baker offers this Jurist commentary.

Ballot Access for Nader

The Wall Street Journal offers Nader Off to Rocky Start; As Deadlines Loom, Confusion, Limited Funds Dog Campaign. A snippet:

Mr. Nader needs to begin supplying answers fast, because Pennsylvania's deadline isn't the only one drawing closer. By July 26, he'll need 10,000 valid signatures in Missouri; by Aug. 24, he'll need 15,306 in Oregon; and by Sept. 7, he'll need 14,527 in New Mexico. In the meantime, Nader volunteers say their efforts are plagued by the campaign's disorganization and difficulty mobilizing the political left.

If he had a fat campaign treasury -- say, $20 million or so -- Mr. Nader could hire enough paid signature gatherers and technical experts to easily clear the hurdles of the 35 states with tough ballot requirements, says Nathaniel Persily, an election-law expert at the University of Pennsylvania.

Reform Groups File Complaint Against Democratic-Leaning 527

According to this press release, the Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21, and the Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the FEC charging Americans Coming Together (ACT), "a registered federal political committee, with illegally spending soft money on its efforts to defeat President George Bush. The violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) include ACT's improper calculation of the FEC allocation rules to illegally spend more soft money on its voter mobilization activities than the rules allow, ACT's illegal use of soft money to pay for its direct mail fundraising communications that are required to be funded with hard money and ACT's improper solicitation of funds."

"Dual Measure Triggers Dispute: Constitutionality of Lawmakers' Ballot Plan is Questioned"

The Sacramento Bee offers this report.

"Ariz. Dems to Challenge Nader's Ballot Signatures"

A.P. offers this report.

Michael Moore's Film as a "Contribution" to Kerry?

There certainly may be campaign finance issues associated with Michael Moore's new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11" (I'll be writing something more about this soon), but this New York Post editorial is off the mark in considering the film a possible "contribution" to Kerry.

"Legislation Would Give D.C. a Vote in the House"

The Washington Post offers this report.

"Lott, Other Senators, Set to Probe 'Cumbersome' FEC"

The Hill offers this report. It quotes Senator McCain as calling FEC Vice Chair Ellen Weintraub "an egregious enabler of special interests."

"Bush '04 Squeezes GOP 527s"

Roll Call offers this report (paid subscription required), which begins: "In a major shift in fundraising strategy, President Bush’s finance team has begun asking wealthy Republicans to cut checks as large as $1 million to GOP state parties in key election battlegrounds rather than steering their funds to independent groups created in recent months to support Republican candidates this fall."

Quote of the Day

"[J]udges, like most other lawyers, are obsessive citers (a reflex designed to conceal the subjective and unstable character of much legal reasoning)." Judge Richard A. Posner, here.

Election administration jobs

I just received the following via email:

PAE Government Services, Inc. is seeking resumes from qualified individuals interested in long- and short-term overseas assignments in support of Eastern European, Balkan and Central Asian democratization projects for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

Positions are categorized in the following disciplines:

6+ month positions:
Election Administration
Economic and Environmental Affairs
Political Institution Building
Rule of Law
Human Rights
Media Development
Democratization
Press and Public Information
Border Monitoring

1-2 week volunteer opportunities:
Election Monitoring (prior election experience in the US or overseas required).

U.S. Citizenship required. Preference will be given to individuals with international expertise in the above disciplines. Area language ability may be required. Most commonly needed languages are Russian and Serbo-Croatian.

Please apply online at: www.pae-react.com. To view current vacancies for which the US is authorized to nominate, go to https://www.pae-react.com/JobFramenew.html. For any other information, contact Leslie Smith in the Recruiting Office at 703-248-1674 or 1-800-405-7593.

Judge Calabresi on Bush v. Gore

This New York Sun article discusses Judge Guido Calabresi's controversial remarks to the American Constitution Society's convention. It has been getting a lot of play in the blogosphere, including this post by Eugene Volokh questioning whether the judge broke an ethical canon and whether he has a First Amendment defense under Republican Party of Minnesota v. White.

"Legislators United to Derail Primary Initiative"

The Los Angeles Times offers this report.

"Inmate Populations Skew Representation"

Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman offers this Miami Herald oped. Here is a snippet: "Currently, the Census Bureau counts prison inmates as residents of the congressional and state legislative districts in which they are incarcerated. This affects population data and, by extension, legislative redistricting. Because Florida's prisons are disproportionately located in rural Republican areas, the inmate population increases the voting power of Republicans at the expense of Democrats."

"Can Foreign Nationals Give to Kerry?"

Slate offers this explainer.

Catching Up Department

The blog is back up. Here is some news that has piled up:

Alan Greenblatt and A.G. Newmyer III offer Money always finds its way into politics in the San Francisco Chronicle.

A letter to the editor entitled "McCain-Feingold Helps" appeared here in the Washington Post.

The Miami Herald offers Rights Leader Scolds Bush on Felons, which begins: "Hearkening back to the 1960s, when Southern states used poll taxes and intimidation to shut blacks out of elections, the Rev. Jesse Jackson on Monday accused Florida Gov. Jeb Bush of engaging in 'disenfranchisement schemes' by asking counties to purge felons from voter rolls."

A.P. offers Senate Swiftly OKs Alternative to Open Primary Initiative, with news out of California which begins: "Senate Democrats and Republicans joined forces Monday to swiftly approve a constitutional amendment that would counter a November ballot initiative lawmakers said could lead to one-party general elections for some offices." See also this
Sacramento Bee report. (Disclosure: I am a consultant for the proponents of this initiative).

A.P. also offers Judge Issues Order Blocking Unaffiliated Voters from GOP Primary, news out of Kansas.

Bob Bauer responds to Tony Corrado and Tom Mann's latest Forum piece on BCRA at this link.

Bob also links to this draft FEC advisory opinion that could affect efforts to regulate t.v. and radio advertisements for Michael Moore's new anti-Bush film, Fahrenheit 9/11. Take a look at the draft opinion's footnote 4; Very interesting.

Blogging, Listserv, E-mail to Resume By Tuesday

Because of server maintenance, these services won't be available until some time on Monday. Blogging will resume by Tuesday. If you need to contact me via e-mail, send a message to hasenr-at-netscape.net.

"Campaign Fund Probe Expands to Democrat; Allegations Echo Inquiry of DeLay"

The Houston Chronicle offers this report, which begins: "Travis County prosecutors said Wednesday they are investigating an allegation that U.S. Rep. Martin Frost illegally funneled more than $100,000 in corporate donations to Texas legislative candidates in the 2000 election. Frost, D-Dallas, denied the accusation, saying the criminal complaint against him is a Republican attempt to deflect attention from an ethics investigation of U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay."

"Officials Caught Off Guard by Irreverent 'Daily Show""

The Sacramento Bee offers this report.

Democratic Party to Make Independent Expenditures Favoring Kerry

See this Boston Globe report. This is exactly the strategy I predicted here when the Kerry folks floated the trial balloon (since shot down) of a delayed Kerry nomination date.

More Corrado and Mann on the Early BCRA Verdict

See here.

Volokh on NRA Exemption

See here.

Campaign Finance News

The Washington Post offers Kerry Outpaces Bush in Donations. The New York Times features Republicans Nearing Money Record for Convention.

Bauer on NRA

Bob Bauer responds to my post on the NRA and the media exemption here.

Important Note: Server Downtime

Beginning Friday, June 18, through Monday, June 21, the election law blog, the election law listserv, and my e-mail will likely be down for extended periods for scheduled downtime maintenance. For at least some of this time, the blog will be inacessible, the listserv will not post messages, and e-mail messages will not come through to me (though, frustratingly, you may not get a bounce message if you send me anything). Best bet to reach me during this period: send an e-mail to my backup email address: hasenr-at-netscape.net (replacing the -at- with @ of course).

South Dakota campaign finance controversy

A.P. offers a report that begins: "A group formed to encourage American Indian voting has ties to a defunct political action committee that gave more than $200,000 to the South Dakota Democratic Party."

Two Views of New APSA Report

The American Political Science Association recently released a task force report, America in an Age of Rising Inequality. Norm Ornstein comments favorably on the report here. Bob Bauer is less enthusaistic here.

The NRA and the Media Exemption

The New York Times reports here that "[i]n a direct challenge to federal limits on political advocacy, the National Rifle Association plans to begin broadcasting a daily radio program on Thursday to provide news and pro-gun commentary to 400,000 listeners. The group says its jump into broadcasting with its program, 'NRANews,' means that it should be viewed as a media organization that does not have to abide by provisions of a sweeping campaign finance law from 2002. That law stops organizations from using unregulated "soft" money to buy political advertising that directly attacks or praises federal candidates in the weeks before federal elections and primaries. The N.R.A. says its three-hour program constitutes news and commentary, not advertising. As a result, when other advocacy groups are required to stop running political commercials, 'NRANews' intends to continue broadcasting its reporting and commentary against politicians who favor gun control to Nov. 2."

The article quotes various opinions on the legality of NRA's move, including a quote from Democratic attorney Bob Bauer: "It smells like, and it looks like, a complete circumvention of the law," Mr. Bauer said.

The issue does not appear so clear-cut, however. Because the NRA takes corporate money, under the law it cannot make "expenditures" (except through a separate PAC) on any "electioneering communication': that is, a broadcast advertisement made within 60 days of the general election mentioning an identified candidate for federal office and targeted at the relevant electorate. However, the law exempts from the definition of "expenditure" "any "communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station[, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication], unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate." 2 USC 434(f)(3)(B)(i); 2 USC 431(9)(B)(i).

To give a simple example to start, NBC Nightly News can spend unlimited corporate funds on news stories naming Bush and Kerry (even endorsing one of them). But General Electric, parent company of NBC, could not spend any corporate funds for advertisements on NBC Nightly News or any other electioneering communications featuring Bush or Kerry in the 60 day window before the election.

Putting aside the possibility that the NRA is a "political committee" that owns or controls the broadcast station (it appears otherwise from the Times article), the relevant question is whether its three-hour daily show fits into the media exemption. The only Supreme Court case arguably on point is Massachusetts Citizens for Life, where the Supreme Court held that the special edition of a newsletter put out by an anti-abortion group was not a "periodical publication" under the media exemption.

Following MCFL's reasoning, one question about NRANews is whether this is a show put on only for electioneering purposes or is really a bona fide news and commentary program. The fact that the NRA started this show now and plans to broadcast through Election Day raises the question as to whether this is really a bona fide news program. It appears to be a factual question.

The FEC has promulgated some pre-BCRA rules on this (which Marty Lederman cites to here skeptically) which don't really appear to help answer the question of how to treat NRANews.

For someone like Bob Bauer, who generally opposes reading the campaign finance statutes broadly to cover even more activity than the statute clearly does, it appears inconsistent to claim that the NRA activity looks like a "complete circumvention" of the law.

This presents a difficult statutory question about the meaning of the media exemption. The Times article also suggests that NRA is pursing this strategy as a way to make a constitutional assault on federal campaign law as well, by claiming that the media exemption is unconstitutional. I think that position was pretty much rejected by the Supreme Court in the McConnell case, for reasons I've set forth here.

Initiative to Allocate Colorado's Electoral Votes Proportionally

The Denver Post offers this report, which notes: "If approved Nov. 2, the constitutional amendment would affect this year's choice for president by immediately permitting the division of Colorado electoral votes. And it would mark the most ambitious Electoral College reform yet in the nation."

"Calif. Won't Let 17-Year-Olds Vote"

A.P. offers this report.

"State Elections Likely to Renew Redistricting Fight"

WSBTV (Georgia) offers this report, noting that the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the cert petition in Larios v. Cox.

Winks and Nods

Yesterday, the Washington Post offered an editorial, "No Winks or Nods," on the 527 issue. Today Bob Bauer responds with his own post, "Outrageous."

"Illegal Pleas for Illegal Cash"

The Deseret News (Utah) offers this report, which begins: "As Rep. Chris Cannon sat by, one of his aides urged any illegal aliens listening to a Spanish-language radio talk show to funnel money into his campaign by giving it to U.S. citizens who could donate it legally."

"Electoral-College Reform Requires Change in Timing"

Leonard Shambon offers this Roll Call oped. Shambon also is the author of "Implementing the Help America Vote Act," an article that will appear in the next issue of the Election Law Journal.

A connection between Bush v. Gore and the Pledge case?

Linda Greenhouse sees one here (page 2).

"He Pushed the Hot Button of Touch-Screen Voting"

The New York Times offers this report.

Why Right-Leaning 527s might not be doing as well as those on the left

David Keene writes here in The Hill, offering the following theory:

The problem the organizers of Republican 527 groups face today is that there aren’t many Republican or conservative givers with the deep commitment of a Jane Fonda or the resources of a George Soros. Conservative true believers tend to give what they can, but that’s usually more like a hundred dollars than a million. By way of contrast, Soros, Progressive Insurance Corp. Chairman Peter Lewis and Hollywood’s Stephen Bing has each already given more than $7 million to liberal or Democratic 527s.

A lot of rich Republican-leaning business types out there would write sizeable individual and corporate checks to the party if they could, and many, many more would be willing to contribute a couple of thousand dollars to President Bush’s re-election campaign, but very are few willing to give big bucks to a conservative independent effort, even one organized by well-known fellow establishmentarians.

Sager on NY campaign finance system

Ryan Sager offers this New York Post column, criticizing New York's public financing system for city campaigns.

Database of election law teachers

I hope to compile a database of teachers of election law that I will post on the blog and keep periodically updated. If you wish to be listed in the database, please send me a private e-mail with the following in the subject line:

teacher database

In the body of the email message, please complete the following:
Name:
e-mail address:
institutional affiliation:
number of years teaching course: (0-5)/(6-10)/10+
next term scheduled to teach course:
casebook: (Lowenstein/Hasen) (Issacharoff/Karlan/Pildes) (other)
anything notable about course (up to 6 words): (e.g., emphasis on voting rights; campaign finance seminar, etc.)

Bauer on the health of American democracy

See here.

Newspaper series on redistricting

The Fresno Bee has run a series of articles on redistricting entitled "Drawing a Line." You can access the main page here. Thanks to Sam Hirsch for the pointer.

No Ruling Today in Georgia Redistricting Case

The Court apparently did not rule on Larios v. Cox, even though it was scheduled to be discussed at last week's conference. We'll see if it is relisted.

"Court Revives Diversity Issue in Michigan"

A.P. offers this report, which begins: "A state appeals court has reinstated a petition drive for a ballot proposal to end affirmative action at public universities and other agencies."

John Fund Comes Out Against California's Primary Initiative

See here. Fund incorrectly states that, under the proposal, "[i]f a candidate exceeded 50%, he would be elected to the office; otherwise, the top two finishers, regardless of party, would advance to a general election runoff." That is only true in special elections. Otherwise, the top two advance to the general election even if a candidate exceeds 50% in the primary. (Disclosure: I am a consultant for the initiative's drafters.)

"Special Election Bill Gets New Life; Voters Would Pick Successor to Kerry"

The Boston Globe offers this report (link via Politicalwire.com).

"Clinton Planning to Use Book Tour to Assist Kerry"

The New York Times offers this front-page report.

"Gambling on Voting"

The New York Times offers this editorial, which begins: "If election officials want to convince voters that electronic voting can be trusted, they should be willing to make it at least as secure as slot machines."

"Nader Had Campaign Office at Local Charity; Situation Raises Ethical Questions"

The Washington Post offers this report.

Will Washington State's Primary Be Confusing?

See here.

"Measure to Curb Negative Ads Seen as a Failure"

The San Diego Union-Tribune offers this report.

"Fla. Voting Machines Have Recount Flaw"

See this A.P. report.

Tokaji Responds to Today's NY Times editorial on disability rights and electronic voting

See here.

"Film and Election Politics Cross in 'Fahrenheit 9/11"

The Los Angeles Times offers this report, with the following subhead: "The marketing of a scathing movie about Bush resembles a race for the White House." Thanks to James Cooper for the pointer.

Washington State Petitions for Cert in Case Raising Question Whether Felon Disenfranchisement Violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

Lyle Denniston (now writing at SCOTUSblog---I assume instead of the Boston Globe) has this post. My earlier coverage of the case is here.

"The Disability Lobby and Voting"

The New York Times offers this editorial. A snippet:

The real issue, though, is that disability-rights groups have been clouding the voting machine debate by suggesting that the nation must choose between accessible voting and verifiable voting.

It is well within the realm of technology to produce machines that meet both needs. Meanwhile, it would be a grave mistake for election officials to rush to spend millions of dollars on paperless electronic voting machines that may quickly become obsolete.

"League of Women Voters is Split on Paperless Computer Voting Systems"

See this A.P. report.

"State Lifts Ban on O.C. E-Voting"

The Los Angeles Times offers this report.

"Legal Tab for State Redistricting Fight Soaring; Most Costs Attributed to Legal Fees"

See this news from Georgia.

"Supreme Court Hears Redistricting Argument"

See this news from New Hampshire.

New York Times editorial on denial of cert in the Colorado case

See here.

Field Poll Shows California Open Primary Initiative Leading 50%- 37%

See this document at page 3. [Disclosure: I am a consultant to the proponents of this initiative.]

"Nader on Ariz. Ballot"

The Hill offers this report.

"Billionaire Soros Banking on Bush Loss"

A.P. offers this report.

"Probe Sought of Florida Response to Voting Machine Woes"

Law.com offers this report. Thanks to Steven Sholk for the pointer.

"St. Louis Gears Up for Early Voting"

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch offers this report.

Berkowitz and Wittes Reply to Tribe on Bush v. Gore

The forthcoming Villanova Law Review article is posted here.

"GOP’s Approach to Continuity: Not Just Unfortunate. Stupid."

Norm Ornstein offers this Roll Call column (paid subscription required). A snippet:

Every day we get reminders about the real threat to the Capitol from vicious terrorists. The issue of ensuring a continuing Congress should have been the subject of vigorous debate from the early stages after 9/11. It is a complicated problem, and it takes time and effort for Members to get their minds around it. Far more of them should be engaged now. There was a real opportunity to do that last week, at no real cost to the leaders and their colleagues who oppose a constitutional amendment. They could have looked magnanimous and thoughtful, not spiteful and vindictive.

Of all the issues out there, this one should be the least partisan. There was no earthly reason for the Judiciary Committee to vote on strictly partisan lines on the Sensenbrenner alternative, or on the constitutional amendment. There was no reason for the House to split on partisan lines on the rule and on the motion to recommit, no reason to limit the debate to a pathetic 90 minutes, no reason to slap Dana Rohrabacher, Zoe Lofgren and John Larson in the face. It is the middle-finger approach to governing, driven by a mind-set that has brought us the most rancorous and partisan atmosphere I have seen in the House in nearly 35 years. Eventually, it is going to tick off more than a few Republicans along the way — and that’s something the leadership might regret if their margin of majority shrinks significantly in November.

Perspectives on the Supreme Court's decision not to intervene in Colorado Redistricting

See here and here.

Bauer on the Upcoming 60-day "Electioneering Communications' Window

See here.

"Mike McCabe: Balking at Finance Reform"

See this Madison.com commentary.

"In Florida, Wrestling Again Over Felons and Voting"

The New York Times offers this report.

Court Rejects Spargo case

See this a.p. report.

"Where are the lines? The Court's Impact on Voting Maps"

The Christian Science Monitor offers this report, with the following subhead: "The Supreme Court has stayed out of two recent frays, but a Texas case could resolve how often lines can be redrawn." See also this Washington Post report.

"E-Vote Fight Has Plenty of Human Drama Too"

The Los Angeles Times offers this report.

"Age Before Duty"

The Los Angeles Times offers this front-page report, with the following subhead: "Term limits are forcing the Legislature's four big veterans to end their careers. They'll take with them a command of issues and decorum."

"Colorado Republicans Lose Redistricting Effort"

The New York Times offers this report.

"Republican 'Soft Money' Groups Find Business Reluctant to Give"

The Washington Post offers this report.

Heindrik Hertzberg on Kerry Delay of Nomination, Money in Politics

See here. Thanks to David Ettinger for the pointer.

Cert Denied Over Dissent in Colorado Redistricting Case

Note: This is a corrected post from an erroneous post stating that the Court did not decide the case today. Thanks to a reader for passing the correction along.

The Court denied cert. today in the Colorado redistricting case over three dissents. See here. Chief Justice Rehnquist, along with Justices Thomas and Scalia, dissented. The issue here is parallel to the issue raised in the Bush v. Gore concurrence regarding the power of state legislatures over courts to decide rules for the election of federal officials.
Here is a snippet from the dissent:

Generally the separation of powers among branches of a State's government raises no federal constitutional questions, subject to the requirement that the government be republican in character. But the words "shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof" operateas a limitation on the State. Cf. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 25 (1892) (discussing Article II, §1, cl. 2, of the U. S. Constitution). And to be consistent with Article I, §4, there must be some limit on the State’s ability to define lawmaking by excluding the legislature itself in favor of the courts.
We should grant certiorari to review the Colorado state court's debatable interpretation of this provision of federal law. I dissent from the denial of the petition for writ of certiorari.

"Companies Pare Political Donations"

The Wall Street Journal offers this report. Thanks to Steven Sholk for the link.

"GOP Can't Beat 3rd Party Groups, So It Joins Them"

The Los Angeles Times offers this report.

Will Pennsylvania be the Next Florida?

See here.

Another interview with Sen. McCain about the FEC and McCain-Feingold

See this Businessweek interview.

Technical Note

Construction near the Loyola servers caused dust to get into the machines here, leading to some unexpected outages in this blog, the election law listserv, and my e-mail. More outages over the next few weeks are possible. If you sent me an e-mail this weekend, please resend. A backup address you can also use for me is hasenr-at-netscape.net.

New Republican-oriented 527

See this UPI column by Peter Roff.

Will Club for Growth Spend More to Support Pres. Bush's Reelection?

See this New York Times report.

Coors v. Coors

The company does not like Colorado U.S. Senate candidate Peter Coors' stand on gay marriage. See here.

Can CNN See Florida's Felon Purge List?

See here.

"A Better Campaign Finance System"

E.J. Dionne offers this Washington Post oped, which begins: " Pity the poor campaign finance reformers. All their dreams are supposedly going up in smoke."

"Officials Defend Punch-Card Ballot"

A.P. offers this report out of Chicago.

Missouri Supreme Court Rules that Gay Marriage Initiative Will Appear on August, Not November, Ballot

The opinion is here. The AP Report is here.

Jerry Goldfeder on Keeping Ralph Nader off the Ballot

See this commentary in the New York Sun.

"Judicial Campaigning Lands at Supreme Court's Doorstep"

Legal Times offers this report. Thanks to How Appealing for the pointer.

Profile of Justice Stevens in USA Today

The article mentions the Justice's role in McConnell v. FEC and Bush v. Gore.

"Bush Campaign Seeks Help from Thousands of Congregations"

The New York Times offers this front page report, which begins: "The Bush campaign is seeking to enlist thousands of religious congregations around the country in distributing campaign information and registering voters, according to an e-mail message sent to many members of the clergy and others in Pennsylvania."

Sen. McCain Places Hold on Lenhard to Replace Thomas at FEC; Recess Appointment Still Possible

See this A.P. report (second item).

Will the Texas Re-Redistricting Give Republicans the Margin to Keep Control of the House?

See this report in the Christian Science Monitor.

"Bush Still Not On Illinois Ballot"

The Illinois Leader offers this report.

More Bauer on Smith

See here.

"GOP Governors Group Says It Underreported Millions to IRS"

The Hill offers this report, which begins: "The Republican Governors Association (RGA), the largest 527 group allied with the GOP, has informed the IRS that it failed to report millions of dollars in receipts and expenditures last year."

McCain and Feingold on McCain-Feingold's Success

Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold offer this commentary in the Cincinnati Post.

Miss. Governor Vetoes Campaign Finance Law Improving Disclosure

See this report. The governor said he vetoed the bill because it contained a provision limiting the amounts corporations could contribute to PACs to $2,000.

"Seduced by 'Reform'"

Robert Samuelson offers this Washington Post oped, that discusses, among other reforms, McCain-Feingold.

"Mo. Supreme Court Hears Arguments Over Gay Marriage Amendment"

See this Kansas City Star report.

"Spots By Anti-Bush Groups Allow Kerry to Stay More Positive"

See this Philly.com report.

Stand By Your Anuncio

See this Winston-Salem Journal report, which begins: "WSJS radio has suspended broadcast of the ads of all candidates for the 5th Congressional District as it tries to determine whether Vernon Robinson legally can air an English language ad that gives a required disclaimer about how it was paid for in Spanish." The disclaimer in question translated as: "Yo, Gringo! This episode of The Twilight Zone was paid for by Robinson for Congress." Thanks to David Ettinger for the pointer.

Eighth Circuit to Review White Case En Banc

The Eighth Circuit will rehear en banc the judicial elections case, Republican Party of Minnesota v. White. Oral argument will be the third week in October. The order is here. This case is on remand from the United States Supreme Court (536 U.S. 765 (2002). Thanks to Ed Feigenbaum for the pointer.

"New Law Ends Secrecy on Campaign Donors"

The Miami Herald offers this report. Thanks to Alan Murphy for the pointer.

Supreme Court Redistricting Update

Following up on this post, the Supreme Court once again failed to issue an order in the Colorado redistricting case. In addition, Sam Hirsch writes: "On Friday, May 28, the U.S. Supreme Court requested responses from the state defendant-appellees to the five jurisdictional statements filed by plaintiff-appellants in the Texas congressional redistricting case, Session v. Perry. The responses are due on Monday, June 28. Reply briefs will be filed this summer, and we would expect the Court either to note probable jurisdiction or to summarily affirm the judgment below this fall."

Dan Walters on California's New Voter Choice Open Primary Initiative

See this Sacramento Bee column (Disclosure: I am a consultant for the initiative's proponents).

"Overseas Campaign Cash OK"

The Hill offers this report, which begins: "A crucial omission by the drafters of the new campaign-finance law and the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) decision not to regulate 527 and other tax-exempt groups this year may have opened the door for foreign nationals to contribute millions of dollars that could influence the election, experts in campaign-finance law say."

"Bundling: A Darker Side of Campaign Finance"

See this letter to the editor in the Washington Post.

"George Soros Putting His Fortune Behind a New Cause: Ousting Bush"

USA Today offers this report.

"Taking exception: Liberals' silence on 527s shows hypocrisy"

Ronald Eibensteiner, Chair of the Minnesota Republican Party, offers this commentary.

Bauer on Wertheimer on Smith

See here.