Rick Hasen's web log
April 30, 2008
Bauer v. the ALP, Round 2
See here and here (don't miss the hilarious update to the second post).
"Appearance Matters: Why the State Has an Interest in Preventing the Appearance of Voter Fraud"
Andrew Delaney has posted this timely NYU Law Review note on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
- As the public increasingly focuses attention on problems of election fraud, courts have struggled to deal with the constitutionality of anti-fraud measures. Reflecting this, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case on the constitutionality of a law that requires voters to present photo identification to vote in-person. Critics say that the law puts an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote while advocates argue the state's interest in preventing voter fraud is strong enough to justify this burden.
Drawing an analogy to campaign finance law, this piece argues that the state has an interest in preventing not only election fraud, but also in preventing the appearance of election fraud, an interest not previously recognized by federal courts. The state has this interest in election law for the same reason it does in campaign finance law, namely because it has an interest in preventing voters from losing faith in the democratic process and thus dropping out of that process. Borrowing from the standard of proof courts have used to prove the appearance of corruption exists in financing, this paper analyzes popular opinion, media reports, and legislators statements to determine that the appearance of voting fraud exists - and therefore the state can act on its interests in combating that appearance. Due to its current relevance, this paper analyzes photo identification requirements as an example of the type of anti-fraud law which might not be constitutional if the state's only interest was in preventing the actual fraud, but might be when factoring in the appearance of corruption interest.
"Gaming Indiana: The Quirky State Voting Law That Could Affect Tuesday's Primary"
I have written this new piece for Slate. It begins:
- Set aside, for a moment, the Supreme Court's decision Monday upholding Indiana's voter-identification law. It's another little-noticed election law in the state that could come into play during next week's Clinton-Obama contest for the Democratic presidential nomination. Republicans and independents can vote in Indiana's Democratic primary. But this quirky state law gives voters the right to challenge other voters at the polls for not being sufficiently loyal to the political party in whose primary they are voting."
For the election geeks out there (hi Doug!), the relevant code sections are the following two:
- IC 3-10-1-6
Eligible voters
Sec. 6. A voter may vote at a primary election:
(1) if the voter, at the last general election, voted for a majority of the regular nominees of the political party holding the primary election; or
(2) if the voter did not vote at the last general election, but intends to vote at the next general election for a majority of the regular nominees of the political party holding the primary election;
as long as the voter was registered as a voter at the last general election or has registered since then.
and
IC 3-10-1-9
Challenging voter
Sec. 9. A voter in a precinct may challenge a voter or person who offers to vote at a primary election. The challenged person may not vote unless the challenged person:
(1) is registered;
(2) makes:
(A) an oral or a written affirmation under IC 3-10-12; or
(B) an affidavit:
(i) that the challenged person is a voter of the precinct; or
(ii) required under IC 3-10-11 if the voter declares that the voter is entitled to vote under IC 3-10-11; and
(3) either:
(A) at the last general election voted for a majority of the regular nominees of the political party for whose candidates the challenged person proposes to vote in the primary election and intends to vote for the regular nominees of the political party at the next general election; or
(B) if the challenged person did not vote at the last general election, intends to vote at the next general election for a majority of the regular nominees of the political party holding the primary election.
As I note in the Slate piece, "Given the way it's constructed, prosecuting someone under this law looks quite difficult--unless someone is dumb enough to blog about lying on an affidavit, how would prosecutors prove how the voter voted last time or that he lacks the intention to vote for a majority of Democrats at the next general election? And there are questions about the constitutionality of this provision." On the constitutional question, at least for voters who voted in the last election, is this not a two year disaffiliation provision, like that struck down by the Supreme Court in Kusper v. Pontikes. I'd certainly advise the Indiana legislature to change this law before the next election, or else face a lawsuit seeking to strike it down.
In any case, we'll see if challengers materialize at the polls on Tuesday. Thanks so much to a reader for initially bringing the odd Indiana code provisions to my attention.
"Help America Vote"
This Roll Call editorial ($) weighs in on what Congress should do in light of Crawford.
"Reid Makes New Offer on FEC, Insists on Having Six Commissioners"
If this BNA report is to be believed, the GOP is ready to throw von Spakovsky overboard. Just when he's argued his positions taken at DOJ have been vindicated by the Supreme Court's decision in Crawford.
More Articles and Commentaries on Crawford
Check out this second NPR report by Nina Totenberg. I was struck by the comments of both Rick Pildes and Pam Karlan. I disagree with both of them, but would want to hear more from them on their points. (As an aside, a double congratulations to Rick!)
I also did this extensive NPR interview on the case with the Bryant Park Project.
David Savage has an interesting piece on the demise of facial challenges in this morning's LA Times.
Ned Foley and Dan Tokaji have characteristically thoughtful pieces on the case.
Bob Bauer weighs in here and here.
John Fund's WSJ column is here.
MSNBC offers A Timely Reminder from Justice Stevens.
And Richard Samp has this guest post on SCOTUSblog.
Back from Boston
It was very interesting to see the very wide spectrum of views represented at the Kennedy school event yesterday on reforming the presidential primary process. (The conversation was on the record, and a transcript will be posted by the Kennedy school at some point.) I would say I walked away thinking how difficult change is going to be, how intractable the positions of those supporting and opposing a system that allows Iowa and New Hampshire to go first, how different the Democratic and Republican party philosophies are on how flexible rule changes should be, and how little support there was among this very diverse audience for a congressional solution (at least one that is foisted upon the national political parties against their will). There was talk of congressional carrots, and there seemed to be a consensus that fundamental changes to the Democratic rules would take place if Sen. McCain ended up winning in November. There also seemed to be agreement that something had to be done to fix the administration of caucuses in some states, such as Texas. But as for this diverse group reaching a general consensus over (1) what, if anything, is wrong with the current system of nominating the presidential candidates; (2) how, if at all, the system should be changed, and (3) who should implement those changes, forget about it.
April 29, 2008
April 28, 2008
Radio Interviews on Crawford
I did this interview on KPCC's Air talk and I'm scheduled to be on tomorrow's Bryant Park Project.
Crawford Roundup
Here are some stories and commentaries on today's decision:
NY Times (Linda Greenhouse),The Times' Ian Urbina (whose story with Eric Lipton on fraud was cited by the Court) and this NY Times editorial (which cites my earlier blog post)
Washington Post (and Roy Schotland will do this Post discussion)
Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita
More to come
Initial Thoughts on the Supreme Court's Opinion in Crawford, the Indiana Voter Identification Case
Today's much anticipated decision in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board is a significant win for those who support stricter voter identification laws, even if they support such laws for partisan purposes. It will encourage further litigation, because it relegates challenges to laws imposing onerous burdens on a small group of voters to "as applied" challenges, but those challenges will be difficult to win. The lack of a majority opinion, moreover, injects some uncertainty into the appropriate standard for reviewing other challenges to onerous election laws. The Court's specific split in this case will blunt charges that this is a politicized 5-4 decision---and it is significant that the Court, once again, has failed to cite to its opinion in Bush v. Gore. More on each of these points below. [Disclosure: I filed this pro bono amicus brief on my own behalf supporting the challengers to the law in this case.]
1. The Controlling Standard from Justice Stevens' Opinion. The Court split into three camps on the constitutionality of Indiana's voter identification law (four camps if you count the nuanced differences between Justice Souter's and Justice Breyer's dissenting opinions). The controlling opinion is that of Justice Stevens, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy. In a nutshell, the approach boils down to this: under the balancing approach of earlier cases (which the opinion says comes from cases such as Anderson and Burdick), a state needs to come forward with merely plausible non-discriminatory interests to justify an election law. The evidence need not be strong. Indeed, though Justice Stevens says that there is evidence of fraud to justify a voter identification requirement, the actual evidence he cites in the footnotes is incredibly thin---either reaching back to 1868 (footnote 11) or a single case of impersonation voter fraud found in a recent gubernatorial election in Washington state (fn. 12). Moreover, Justice Stevens says an interest in preserving voter confidence can justify such laws as well, ignoring undisputed evidence such laws are not at all likely to instill voter confidence (and could in fact do the opposite). Nor does it matter if the motivation in passing the law is completely partisan. The law is to be upheld unless "such considerations had provided the only justification for a photo identification requirement." So those with partisan motive need only find a nonpartisan pretext for such laws. Once the state has posited its neutral reasons for such a law, the law is to be upheld if it doesn't impose serious burdens on most voters. For those voters who do face serious burdens, they must bring an "as applied" challenge where they present specific evidence applied to them as to why the law is onerous. This channelling of election law cases into as applied challenges--part of a recent trend of the Court--- is going to make it tough for a lot of plaintiffs who are burdened, and is in sharp contrast with the Court's approach in earlier cases, such as the Harper case striking down the poll tax for everyone, not just poor voters. The evidence in as-applied challenges must be specific and tested in litigation; as Justice Stevens says responding to Justice Souter's dissent: "Supposition based on extensive Internet research is not an adequate substitute for admissible evidence subject to cross-examination in constitutional adjudication."
2. The Wide Gap in the Other Opinions. Justice Scalia's opinion (joined by Justices Alito and Thomas) concurring in the judgment is uncharacteristically brief. It reads the applicable constitutional standard differently, one that simply gives carte blanche to most states to pass laws with any kind of neutral justification offered. It is unclear to me, despite the * footnote, whether Justice Scalia would today uphold a poll tax like that struck down by the Court in Harper. Certainly Justice Scalia seems to think that if a law doesn't burden most people, it should be upheld unless it imposes a "severe and overall" burden on the right to vote. Justice Souter's opinion in dissent is the one I would have hoped the Court would have written; rather than accepting the state's interests at face value, it probed to see if the evidence actually supported it. Because the state failed to do so, the Court should have struck down the law entirely, not relegated future challenges to "as applied" litigation. Justice Breyer, taking a somewhat more moderate approach to the state's interest, finds fault in the details of the Indiana plan---there is no justification, he says, for the more severe aspects of the plan.
3. The Split on the Court and the Legacy of Bush v. Gore. Certainly the potentially explosive nature of this litigation is blunted by the Court's interesting split in the case. This is not your typical 5-4 split with Justice Kennedy casting the deciding vote. The controlling opinion features three Justices across the spectrum of the Court; that's good news for those who worried about the effect of this decision on the Court's legitimacy in election law cases. Beyond that split, it is amazing to me how allergic all the Justices of the Court are to Bush v. Gore. One of the things I spent considerable time on in my amicus brief and in this recent Stanford Law Review article is the rise in partisan litigation in the courts in the wake of the 2000 Florida debacle and the politicization even of the Judiciary. Nary a word from any Justice on what their own handiwork may have caused in this country. The Stevens opinion response seems to be one of showing by example rather than addressing the issue directly. While that's to be commended, I am disappointed by how cursory that opinion was in its review of the state's interest in light of the highly partisan atmosphere of election administration, and I fear that, despite the Stevens-Kennedy-Roberts' opinion's best intentions, this opinion will be read as a green light for the enactment of more partisan election laws in an attempt to skew outcomes in close elections. It is a real disappointment from that perspective.
Breaking News: Supreme Court Upholds Voter ID Law
Details to come. Analysis soon. The opinion is here.
"McCain Frequently Used Wife's Jet for Little Cost"
The NY Times offers this report. Bob Bauer comments.
"Election Day in Florida May Look Familiar"
The NY Times offers this front page report, which begins: "The League of Women Voters in Florida and its 27 local groups have helped thousands of residents register to vote over the years. But just over a week ago, the organization’s leaders said they would have to stop their current drive because the state’s top election official planned to enforce strict deadlines and fines of up to $1,000 for groups that lose voter registration forms or turn them in late."
April 26, 2008
"Superdelegate Stalemate Shows No Signs of Easing"
The NY Times offers this report.
"The Speech Police Tackle a Subdivision"
George Will has written this interesting column.
April 25, 2008
Off to Boston
I'll be going to Boston at the beginning of the week to speak at the Harvard Kennedy's School's Bipartisan Symposium on the Presidential Primary Process. I'll be speaking primarily on the question of congressional power to regulate the presidential primary process, which I recently wrote about in the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy.
"McCain's Campaign Finance Regulations"
Kimberly Strassel, in this Wall Street Journal column, says that Sen. McCain's new joint fundraising strategy with the GOP "will involve some creative abuse of the campaign finance restrictions Mr. McCain authored a few years back."
"Prepping for the Top Two Primary"
Washington state Secretary of State Sam Reed has written this Seattle Times oped. Thanks to Steve Rankin for the pointer.
"Bad Math = Mad Politics"
The "Numbers Guy" at the Wall Street Journal has written this column on mathematical calculations related to the Electoral College vote. For those who want to play with the different allocation formulas, see this interactive guide.
UPDATE: The Washington Post has its own math article today, this one on "superdelegates."
PLUS: Hillary Clinton's new math on the popular vote, including Florida and Michigan.
The Still Unexplained Resignation of Jean Pierre Kingsley as Head of Elections Canada
Some of the story is starting to come out.
April 24, 2008
"Civil rights groups sue state officials over voter registrations"
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch offers this report. See also here and here.
"Look Who's Coming to Dinner: Direct versus Brokered Member Campaign Contributions to the NRCC"
Eric Heberlig, Bruce Larson, Daniel A. Smith, and Kristen Soltis have published this article in American Politics Research. Here is the abstract:
- House congressional campaign committees (CCCs) have increasingly relied on incumbents for financial support during the past decade. To raise money for their party's CCC, incumbents can (a) contribute to the CCC through their own principal campaign committee and/or leadership PAC or (b) broker contributions from donors. The authors argue that direct incumbent contributions make available to the party campaign committee broader contribution networks than do brokered incumbent contributions. One observable implication of this thesis is that ties to D.C. lobbyists should be a more powerful predictor of brokered than of direct contributions to the CCCs. Comparing Federal Election Commission data on direct member contributions to the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) with unique data on member ticket sales to the 2005 NRCC March Gala, the authors find strong support for this expectation. Soliciting direct contributions from incumbents appears to be a better means for the CCCs to gain access to new campaign money.
And in Other Florida Election Law News...
A Florida appellate court struck down a portion of the Florida elections code allowing signers of initiative petitions to rescind their signatures. In a separate case, the Eleventh Circuit rejected a U.S. constitutional challenge to a Florida law regulating lobbyists, but certified some state law challenges to the Florida Supreme Court.
"Scalia On Bush v. Gore: Get Over It!"
I can't recall how many times I've had a headline like this, but here's the the latest, this one from the CBS program "60 Minutes."
"NAM Will Disclose Members"
See this post at the Legal Times's "Influence" blog.
Sholk on Current Issues in Campaign Finance
If you are in New Jersey, check this out.
Two WSJ Law Blog Posts on Millionaire's Amendment Case
See here and here. The first of these posts begins: "The Law Blog has tried to stay away from the Supreme Court battle over the so-called millionaire's amendment. Mainly because we took election law as a 3L and found it, well, a good bit drier than most elections." Election law? Dry? I'm shocked at the characterization.
April 23, 2008
"Court Grills Both Sides in 'Millionaire' Case"
Tony Mauro has written this article for the First Amendment Center.
"Why is There No Partisan Competition in City Council Elections? The Role of Election Law"
David Schleicher, who will begin teaching at George Mason law in the fall, has posted this draft on SSRN (forthcoming Journal of Law and Politics). Here is the abstract:
- Despite the attention given to the anticompetitive effects of gerrymandering on national and state elections, little notice is paid to the least competitive legislative elections in America: its city council elections. In cities with partisan elections, individual competitive seats are rarer than at the national level and there is almost never competition for partisan control of councils. Nonpartisan city council elections are even worse, with virtually undefeatable incumbents and no policy competition of any kind. The dominant explanation in the political science literature for this phenomenon is that the lack of partisan competition in local elections is a result of the issues at play in local politics. Local politics, the argument goes, is not ideological - it is only about the competence with which public goods are provided and the allocation of these goods to different groups. This claim cannot stand up to scrutiny. Debates over issues like policing strategy and urban development are ideological, and voters do have beliefs about them, but there is still no partisan competition.
This paper argues that the explanation for the lack of partisan competition in city council elections lies in the laws governing these elections. Several laws - by my definition "unitary party rules" - serve to ensure that the national parties are on the ballot in local elections and that candidates, activists and voters do not defect from dominant national parties during local elections. When combined with the little information available about individual council candidates, the existence of the national party heuristic on local ballots crowds out other information and the laws create severe barriers to entry for potential local parties. The result is that the vote in city council elections directly tracks the vote in national elections, despite strong empirical evidence that voters have very different beliefs about local and national issues. In cities in which one party dominates at the national level, there is no competition. Thus, local legislatures are extremely unrepresentative of voter preferences and have little democratic legitimacy. Repealing the unitary party rules would spur a rearrangement of the two-party system at the local level and create party competition at the local level.
"Lawsuit Filed Against Missouri for Noncompliance With NVRA Sec. 7"
See this press release.
"Protecting the Rights of Millionaires"
Laura MacCleery has written this article for The Nation.
"Prof. Kousser Responds to Prof. Bickerstaff's Comments"
Morgan's response to Steve Bickerstaff's critique of Morgan's Texas Law Review article begins: "Only the closest reasoning and the most detailed attention to the arguments and evidence of a massive, painstakingly documented, ambitiously revisionist history would justify the harsh rhetoric in Steve Bickerstaff's three-and-a-half-page attack on my Article."
Pitts on "The Voting Rights Act and the Era of Maintenance"
Mike Pitts has posted this draft on SSRN (forthcoming, Alabama Law Review). Here is the abstract:
- Since its initial passage in 1965, the Voting Rights Act has seen two distinct Eras of enforcement that have been relatively well-recognized in the literature - the Era of Participation, during which the bald-faced denial of access to voting booths for minority voters was virtually eliminated, and the Era of Descriptive Representation, during which minority voters were able to integrate legislative bodies by electing candidates who shared their same immutable characteristics. This Article contends that we have entered a third Era of Voting Rights Act enforcement - the Era of Maintenance. After identifying and laying the parameters of the Era of Maintenance the Article then tackles the question of whether the Era represents an appropriate approach to the Voting Rights Act going forward.
"Wal-Mart's PAC Mentality"
See this report at the Center for Public Integrity.
"March Presidential Fundraising: Small Donations Fueled Democrats, Large Donations Republicans "
The latest of the now-indispensable reports of the Campaign Finance Institute on presidential fundraising is now available.
"FEC fight leaves candidates hanging"
The Politico offers this report.
Articles and Commentary on Yesterday's Oral Argument in Davis v. FEC
See Howard Bashman's links here, here, and here. See also Michael Darner and Bob Bauer.
I was struck in the WSJ editorial linked by Howard above by this characterization of the Chief Justice's principal opinion in WRTL II: "It was John Roberts's worst moment so far as Chief Justice."
April 22, 2008
Davis v. FEC: Splitting the Baby?
I have now had a chance to review the transcript in today's oral argument in this case. See also this AP report. Though predicting outcomes from oral argument is treacherous (and doing so from a transcript rather than in person especially so), it appears that the Court could well uphold the provision increasing contribution limits for candidates who face self-financed opponents (or strike down the provision but allow increased contribution limits for both candidates in the race), but strike down one aspect of the law allowing such candidates (but not their self-financed opponents) additional coordinated spending with political parties. In addition, the Court appeared poised to strike down one aspect of the disclosure regime applicable to these Millionaire candidates--that requiring a new report to be filed each time the candidate spends an additional $10,000 on the election--but uphold other reporting provisions.
Here's how I see things breaking down. It is pretty clear that Justice Scalia would vote to strike down the contribution limits of the statute (and likely uphold the disclosure rules---though that's less certain). And although Justice Thomas did not say a word, he's a safe bet to strike down the whole law. Justice Kennedy seemed particularly bothered by the party coordination provision, bringing it up repeatedly even though it was not really argued or briefed by Davis. Justice Kennedy at least will vote to strike down this aspect of the statute, and perhaps the increased contribution limits as well. Justice Breyer argued for severability of that statute, suggesting he thought Justice Kennedy's vote on the rest of it was not necessarily lost.
If we count Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy as up to three votes to strike down the increased contribution limits for candidates facing self-financed opponents, the swing votes will likely be (as they were in the other two campaign finance cases of the Roberts Court, Randall v. Sorrell and WRTL II) Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts. (I assume Justices Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg would all vote to uphold the increased contribution limits.) Though these two Justices asked questions of both sides, both of them seemed attracted to the argument that the increased contribution limit provision is constitutional, because it provides more speech, not less speech. And rather than look for a justification an in equality argument---leveling the playing field---these Justices suggested that the law could be justified because it removes some of the first Amendment burdens on candidates by raising contribution limits. The problem with this line of reasoning, as these Justices also suggested, is that it does so for only one candidate, and not both candidates. So one outcome is upholding the provision; a second outcome is holding that Congress could permissibly increase the contribution limits, but such limits would be increased for the self-financed candidates as well.
On disclosure, even Justice Ginsburg seemed skeptical of the burden of disclosure within 24 hours of each $10,000 increment of self-financed spending. That provision could be struck down, though that would have some pretty bad ramifications overall: many opponents of contribution and spending limits point to "instant, Internet-based" disclosure as the best campaign finance regime out there. Such a holding could make such instantaneous disclosure harder to mandate.
One thing that also struck me about the argument was how little the four liberals on the Court spoke. Justice Breyer asked one question. Justices Souter and Stevens barely spoke as well. This area of the law is all about Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts now.
Finally, I was somewhat surprised that standing did not feature anywhere in the argument. How is it that the self-financed candidate was injured here? Because his opponent could outspend him? That's something the Court will have to deal with in its opinion, expected by late June.
Chief Justice Refuses NAM's Request to Block Enforcement of New Lobbying Disclosure Provisions
So reports Lyle Denniston in an update to his earlier post.
"State Officials Asked to Probe Flaws in Voter Lists"
The Hartford Courant offers this report.
April 21, 2008
"The Collapse of the Public Financing System for U.S. Presidential Campaigns: Blame Congress, Not the Candidates"
I've just written this Findlaw column. It begins:
- The voluntary public financing system for U.S. presidential candidates, established in the post-Watergate era, is in its last throes. As it collapses, presidential candidates have been calculating---and recalculating--the advantages of opting in or out.
Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has accused Sen. Barack Obama, the likely (though not certain) Democratic presidential nominee, of going back on his word; according to McCain, Obama had said he would participate in the public financing program in the general election. Democrats, meanwhile, have gone to federal court for permission to sue McCain for improperly trying to opt out of the public financing system during the primary season, after previously opting in.
It is true that both McCain and Obama have been trying to have it both ways on the public financing question. But the fault lays not so much with them as with Congress, which has failed to update the public financing system to make it a viable alternative to privately-run campaigns, and to the President and the members of the Senate, who have failed to break a deadlock over a controversial nominee to the Federal Election Commission.
"Financing Flip-Flop"
Eliza Newlin Carney's latest Rules of the Game Column is available for non-subscribers at this new link on National Journal's snazzy new website. Eliza's take on the public financing controversies of Sens. Obama and McCain is "Both McCain and Obama have staked out policy positions that are directly at odds with their actions on the campaign trail." My take, as I'll soon post, is somewhat different.
"Legislation Awaits to Stave Off Possible Election Meltdown"
Donna Brazile has written this Roll Call oped.
"Court Could Alter Money Rules"
Roll Call offers this report ($) on oral argument Tuesday morning in Davis v. FEC.
"NAM seeks to protect lobbying partners"
Lyle Denniston has this post at SCOTUSblog, which begins: "The National Association of Manufacturers on Monday afternoon asked Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., to temporarily bar enforcement of a new federal lobbying law designed to force public disclosure of donations to the trade group's lobbying by its members -- including major corporations. In an emergency application (NAM v. Taylor, et al., 07A848), the Association asked Roberts for an injunction against the law and a temporary stay, pending its appeal of a federal judge's ruling upholding the new disclosure mandates." UPDATE: See also this statement from the Campaign Legal Center.
"Supreme Court Preview: The Latest Attack on McCain-Feingold: Davis v. FEC and the Millionaires' Amendment"
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy has this post on the ACS blog.
Election Law Journal 7:2 Now Available; Preview of ELJ 7:3
You can find the Table of Contents for Election Law Journal 7:2 here. I have reprinted it below. Look for ELJ 7:3 in July, featuring, Rep. David Price on superdelegates, a forum on the National Popular Vote plan with Bob Bennett, Jamie Raskin, Brad Smith, Derek Muller, and Jennifer Hendricks, Susan Clark Muntean on corporate contributions after BRCA, and book review (in our second annual book review issue) by Vik Amar, Rodolfo de la Garza, Wesley Hussey, Clark Kelso, and Eric Lane.
Table of Contents for ELJ 7:2:
The Party Line
Daniel H. Lowenstein and Richard L. Hasen
ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Seeing Double Voting: An Extension of the Birthday Problem
Michael P. McDonald and Justin Levitt
Voting Technology, Election Administration, and Voter Performance
Robert M. Stein, Greg Vonnahme, Michael Byrne, and Daniel Wallach
BOOK REVIEWS
Targeted Transparency
Michael A. Fitts, reviewing Archon Fung, Mary Graham, and David Weil, Full Disclosure:
The Perils and Promise of Transparency
Buying Power
Andrew Geddis, reviewing Frederic Charles Schaffer, Editor, Elections for Sale: The Causes
and Consequences of Vote Buying
On the Origins of Campaign Finance Regulation
Robert E. Mutch, reviewing Kurt Hohenstein, Coining Corruption: The Making of the
American Campaign Finance System
Irrational Voters, Rational Voting
David Schleicher, reviewing Bryan Caplan, The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why
Democracies Choose Bad Policies
RECENT CASES AND MATERIALS
Summary
Sam Hirsch
Nelson v. Dean, 528F. Supp. 2d 1271 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 14, 2007)
Just Wondering
Could it be that the Supreme Court issues its opinion in Crawford, the Indiana voter id case, tomorrow? Last week it released two tax opinions on April 15 and it released its lethal injection death penalty case on the day it was hearing oral argument in another death penalty case.
Tomorrow is not only the Pa. primary; it is also the day the Court is hearing argument in another election law case, Davis v. FEC.
UPDATE: A reliable source tells me there will be no opinions tomorrow.
"Ethics Law Isn't Without Its Loopholes"
The NY Times offers this must-read report.
"Necessary Overhead?"
Roll Call offers this report, which begins: "A political action committee run out of a prominent downtown Washington, D.C., Republican direct-mail firm has during the past three cycles spent more than 95 percent of $1-million-plus it raised on expenses -- much of it paid to in-house vendors."
"PA Officials: No Trouble With Touchscreens"
See this post at the Why Tuesday? website.
"Dem voter surge could cut Clinton margin"
Politico has this report.
"All who will be 18 by fall should get to vote"
Adam Fogel has written this oped in the Concord Monitor.
"Let's Not Repeat 2000; A special political tribunal could help resolve election conflicts without mistrust"
Ned Foley has written this interesting Legal Times commentary, suggesting an "amicus court" as a first step toward an election law tribunal to handle election law cases.
Davis v. FEC News Stories and Commentaries
In advance of oral argument tomorrow, here are a number of stories and commentaries:
NY Times (editorial)
"Vote by Mail, Go to Jail"
The Texas Observer offers this article, with the subhead: "Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott prosecutes Democrats who help seniors vote by mail while ignoring Republican ballot-box stuffing."
April 18, 2008
"The Trivialization of Voting Rights?"
Rick Hills has this post on Prawfsblawg about the recent Supreme Court oral argument in Riley v. Kennedy.
Sen. Reid Announces Opposition to Considering FEC Nominees in "Pairs"
Following up on this post, BNA Money and Politics Report ($) quotes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as saying he won't consent to "paired" nominees to break the FEC impasse.
I have a theory as to why that will appear in a Findlaw column next week.
April 17, 2008
"State ballot allows creativity with party preferences"
The Olympian offers this report, which begins: "The ballot design for the state's first top-two primary is in, and candidates will have quite a bit of leeway to describe their party 'preferences,' officials with Secretary of State Sam Reed said Wednesday." Very interesting.
"Congress May Seek Criminal Probe of Altered Earmark"
The Washington Post offers this report, which begins: "The Senate moved yesterday toward asking the Justice Department for a criminal investigation of a $10 million legislative earmark whose provisions were mysteriously altered after Congress gave final approval to a huge 2005 highway funding bill."
"Democrats Accuse GOP Campaign Arm Of Covertly Writing Ad"
The Washington Post offers this report.
"FEC Owes $7.4 Million in Matching Funds Unpaid Due to Lack of Commission Quorum"
BNA Money & Politics Report offers this report.
"Provisional Ballots Offer Back-Up for Primary Voters"
This story appeared on NPR's Morning Edition.
Lawyers in the U.S. Presidential Election Campaign
The view from the U.K.
April 16, 2008
District Court Opinion in City of Euclid (OH) Section 2 Case
I have posted it here.
"Follow Bill Nelson's Lead on Reforming Elections System"
Norm Ornstein's latest Roll Call column is available here without a subscription.
"Campaign-Finance Meltdown"
The Wall Street Journal offers this editorial. Inadvertently or not, it may have suggested a way to get at least a quorum on the FEC: nomination in "bipartisan pairs." So von Spakovsky can be paired with someone else to languish, with a Dem and a Republican confirmed to the commission now.
"Voting age poses constitutional quandary"
The Concord Monitor offers this report.
April 15, 2008
Battle of the Titans
It was Potter v. Bauer on the Diane Rehm show. Bob Bauer gives his perspective.
"'Parallel Public Financing System'? Not Quite, But Don't Lose Hope"
Laura MacCleery has written this post at the Huffington Post. I'm working on something on a similar topic and it should appear next week.
"McCain Seeks Funds Despite Legal Hurdles"
The Wall Street Journal offers this report.
"About that Fund-raiser, Sir Elton"
See this post at the Caucus blog
"How McCain Promotes 'Reform' Through Non-Profit Institute"
Harper's has published this piece.
"OK voters required to show ID at polls"
This AP report begins: "Senate Bill 1150 would require Oklahoma voters to provide identification at the polls was approved Monday by the Oklahoma House despite claims that it would deprive some elderly and poor Oklahomans of their right to vote."
"DNC, McCain Stuck In FEC Quagmire"
RealClearPolitics offers this report.
"The Selling of the Judiciary: Campaign Cash 'in the Courtroom.'"
The NY Times offers this editorial observer column by Dorothy Samuels. It mentions this new report from the Brennan Center.
April 14, 2008
Lenhard Withdraws Name for Nomination to FEC
This is really too bad, but I assume that, like everyone else, Commissioner Lenhard needs a job to pay his bills. I think that Commissioner Lenhard has been one of the most thoughtful members of the FEC in recent years.
Don't expect to see a reconstituted FEC before the November election. UPDATE: Bob has joined Covington & Burling.
Second update: On my second point, Bob Lenhard writes: "I disagree with your assessment and that I think that it as likely that we have a reconstituted Commission by the June recess it is that the process remains at impasse till next year."
"Judge Sees Early Decision in Case Challenging FEC Contribution Limits"
A snippet from BNA's report ($) on the oral argument in the Speechnow.org case: "Judge James Robertson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia did not say directly when or how he would rule. The judge hinted, however, that he was unlikely to go along with SpeechNow.org's request for a preliminary injunction protecting it from enforcement of the FEC's 'political committee' rules."
April 13, 2008
Federal District Court Upholds Disclosure Provision of New Lobbying Act from Constitutional Attack by National Association of Manufacturers
You can find the court's opinion here. The court found the provision narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.
Republican Appointee to County Voter Registration Office Allegedly Batters Reporter Asking Questions About Voting Process
You can't make this stuff up.
"Law Firm Linked to McCain PAC, Campaign Loan"
I missed this earlier NPR story, described as: "When Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) got a loan to bail out his presidential campaign, the lending bank issued a letter from its outside counsel -- giving the all-clear sign. That law firm, it turns out, had just recently done work for McCain's political action committee."
"Race and Democratic Contestation"
Michael Kang has published this article in the Yale Law Journal. Here is the abstract:
- As the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) passes its fortieth anniversary and faces upcoming constitutional challenges to its recent renewal, a growing number of liberals and conservatives, once united in support, now share deep reservations about it. This Article argues that the growing skepticism about the VRA and majority-minority districting is misguided by a simplistic and impoverished account of electoral competition in American politics. Electoral competition should be judged with reference to the ultimate ends it is intended to produce--more democratic debate, greater civic engagement and participation, and richer political discourse--all of which are generated by a deeper first-order competition among political leaders that this Article describes as "democratic contestation." This Article offers democratic contestation, in place of electoral competition, as a basic value in the law of democracy and as the foundation for a new theory that helps reconcile approaches to race, representation, and political competition. A theory of democratic contestation shifts the normative focus from the pluralist absorption with which groups get what from politics to a new focus on the tenor and quality of political competition among leaders. When viewed through a theory of democratic contestation, the VRA is crucially procompetitive in the broader sense of democratic contestation. By carving out safe majority-minority districts, the VRA may break the discursive stasis of racial polarization in which politics revolve around the single axis of race. A theory of democratic contestation reveals how majority-minority districts may energize the process of democratic contestation and enable an internal discourse of ideas that moves beyond the racially polarized divide, an otherwise inadvisable move in the face of racially polarized opposition. A theory of democratic contestation thus demands a reevaluation of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in LULAC v. Perry and provides a new understanding of the renewed VRA going forward in the modern world of national partisan competition.
"Courting Change: Rethinking the Supreme Court press corps for a new era"
Dahlia Lithwick's latest Slate column kindly mentions this blog.
Interesting Election 2008 Money in Politics Stories
The following stories have appeared over the last few days and are well worth reading:
Obama courts big contributions, but 'micro donors' on the rise, Chicago Sun-Times, Lynn Sweet (Lynn credits me with coining the term "micro-donors" at the Berkeley conference)
Clinton Aide's Databank Venture Breaks Ground in Politicking, NY Times (must read article)
Great Expectations for a Conservative Group Seem All but Dashed, NY Times
Democrats Plan Lawsuit Over McCain's Reversal on Public Campaign Financing, NY Times
Big Donors Among Obama's Grass Roots, Washington Post (Even if you add up all the bundlers' bundling described in this article, it comes to only $16 million of the $179 million Sen. Obama has raised so far)
Outside political groups spend heavily on races, USA Today (again, the amounts seem pretty paltry compared to overall presidential fundraising so far this year; see also the NY Times article on the difficulties of fundraising for Freedom's Watch, noted above)
April 10, 2008
Off to Cal
I'm going to be on a panel on campaign finance at UC Berkeley's Institute for Governmental Studies conference, "Choosing the President in 2008: The Evolving Process and Its Effects." Regular blogging to resume Monday.
SpeechNow request for Preliminary Injunction to Be Heard Tomorrow
Judge James Robertson in DC will hear the request. This is among the most important campaign finance cases of the decade.
"Public Financing? Obama and McCain Appear Split"
The NY Times offers this report.
"Veterans Department Creates Roadblocks to Voter Registration for Injured Vets"
AlterNet offers this report.
"CREW Files FEC Complaint against U.S. Term Limits for Sponsoring Ad in Support of U.S. Senate Candidate Bob Schaffer"
See this press release.
"Harper May Have to Break Own Election Law"
The National Post (Canada) offers this report.
April 09, 2008
Sen. Obama to Opt Out of Public Financing in the General if He is the Dem. Nominee?
"Lack of Voter Access to Basic Information Impedes Elections"
The Reform Institute has issued this press release.
"Democrat's campaign pledge may violate law"
AP offers this report on a candidate who says he won't take part of his salary. The pledge violates Missouri law. The candidate says the law is unconstitutional. It seems to me the candidate is clearly right.
A Filibuster Proof Dem. Senate?
Politico is skeptical it could happen.
"Byrd's Rule Faces Scrutiny"
Roll Call offers this report, which begins: "A growing number of Senate Democrats began to acknowledge Tuesday that the aging Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) is no longer fit to chair the Appropriations panel, but there is no consensus within the caucus over whether, when or how to remove him from the powerful perch."
April 08, 2008
"I.R.V. for Dummies"
Hendrik Hertzberg of the New Yorker has posted these observations on the Vermont governor's veto of IRV in that state.
Steve Bickerstaff Responds to Kousser Section 5 Article at Texas Law Review's "See Also"
See here.
Do Not Buy Goods from Broadway Photo
Here's a message off topic from Election Law but I can't resist. My daughter wants to buy an SLR digital camera, the Nikon D60. I found it advertised for the lowest price at Broadway Photo. You can see the ad at this link. I tried to make the purchase on line, but I received an email that I needed to call to confirm the order.
When I called, the person on the other end of the phone suggested I get an extended battery for $169 as the battery for the D60 lasts for only 20 minutes. I told him my wife had the D40x, and the battery lasted considerably longer than that. I told him no on the battery, and I'd order it another time if we needed it. He kept pushing, trying to get me to buy the battery or an accessory pack. Then he tells me that perhaps I want to buy the "U.S. model." I asked whether that meant this was not a U.S. model. He said that it was a model for China. He also then told me that the instructions were all in Chinese! I said that I no longer wanted the camera and that this was not clear from the description on the website. (Read it yourself.) He said it was clear and hung up, right after I told him I'd spread the word about the unfair practices of this store.
So deceptive.
UPDATE: Apparently I'm not the only one. See also here.
"Who's Afraid Of 1st Amendment?"
Investors Business Daily offers this editorial.
"Secretary of State Says Voter Fraud Hurts Poor People"
See this news from Mississippi.
John Tanner to Teach Election Law in Alabama on DOJ's Dime
See here: "But he is participating in the federal government's program to loan personnel to other government agencies. The Justice Department is paying Tanner's salary and benefits to be in Alabama through next spring."
Turley on Parallels Between the Electoral College and Superdelegates
See here.
April 07, 2008
More on Sen. McCain and Signing Statements
Back in February, he said Never, never, never.
"Should Democrats Eliminate Superdelegates and Caucuses in 2012?"
That's the question I pose to readers over at the Huffington Post.
Illinois Governor Signs Bill Having State Join National Popular Vote Compact
See here.
"'Too Plain for Argument?' The Uncertain Congressional Power to Require Parties to Choose Presidential Nominees Through Direct and Equal Primaries"
I have written this article (also available in html here) at the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy. Here is the abstract:
- After the 2008 presidential election season concludes, no doubt there will be calls to change the presidential nomination system, especially on the Democratic Party side. Already before the current season began, Congress explored legislation to prevent the frontloading of the primary process through the creation of a series of rotating regional primaries. The close contest for the Democratic Party nomination this winter and spring revealed additional issues beyond the timing question. Critics have argued that the caucus system used in some states is unfair and poorly administered, that the unequal weighting of votes for purposes of delegate selection violates democratic principles, and that the fate of the Democratic Party presidential nomination should not turn on the votes of unelected superdelegates. It is certainly possible that the parties themselves will change their nomination rules in response to these criticisms, as the parties have done in the past. But in the event the parties cannot agree on changes, Congress may consider legislation imposing changes to make the nomination rules comply more with the typical one person, one vote norms applicable to general elections. At the extreme, Congress might require presidential nominations to occur through state-by-state direct primaries conducted under one person, one vote principles. Here, I explore the question whether Congress has the power to impose such primaries on the parties and the states if the parties, states, or both object. I do not consider the wisdom of such legislation.
As I explain, the main argument that parties can advance against Congressional (or for that matter, state) imposition of a direct presidential primary is that it violates the First Amendment associational rights of political parties to determine their method for choosing their standard bearers. This argument would appear to have much force given recent Supreme Court cases recognizing the parties’ rights to overrule the states on the open or closed nature of political primaries. On the other hand, the Court has also accepted as "too plain for argument" a governmental power to require parties to use direct primaries to choose their nominees to assure fairness of the process. So resolution of the question is uncertain.
The second argument that the parties or the states may raise against Congress is that Congress lacks the power under the Constitution to set the rules for presidential elections.7 Such an argument reads Congressional power under Article II of the Constitution narrowly,8 limited to setting the time for choosing presidential electors. Though the textual argument under Article II has some force, both Court precedent and policy suggest that the courts could well accept Congressional power to impose at least some regulations on the primary process, such as regulations setting the timing of primaries or caucuses. It is not clear whether congressional power would extend as far as to the imposition of a direct presidential primary against the parties' and states' wishes.
Part I of this Essay briefly reviews complaints from the 2008 election season about the presidential nominating process. Part II considers the party autonomy argument against congressional legislation imposing a direct presidential primary. Part III considers the Congressional power argument. This Essay concludes by noting that even if Congress may lack the power, the threat of congressional action could spur the parties to reform themselves.
"Rage Against the Machines"
Eliza Newlin Carney's latest National Journal "Rules of the Game" column is up.
Bauer on Briffault on The Roberts Court and Campaign Financing
See here.
Will Citizens United Case Be Back before the Supreme Court in Election 2008 Season?
It is possible ($).
"Voters should be able to select any ballot"
this editorial from the Gary Post Tribune (Indiana) notes: "There is concern in Indiana that there might be a concerted effort by Republicans to influence the outcome of the Democratic primary for president, as well as other contests."
"State moves to collect fines from voting system vendor"
See this news from Indiana.
April 06, 2008
"Is the Small-Donor Revolution All It's Made Out to Be?"
Laura MacLeery is skeptical ($). I'm a big more sanguine. MacLeery concludes: "Future proposals will no doubt evolve in appreciation of the burgeoning growth and power of small donations. Certainly, the landscape of money in politics is being transformed in encouraging ways. The influx of small money is a great sign that politics is engaging voters, and it does improve the health of our democracy. But in all the thrill and excitement, we should not forget that contribution limits are playing an important role in making this revolution possible -- and ensuring the voices of small donors aren’t drowned out by big money and special interests."
"Douglas vetoes campaign finance, instant-runoff voting bills"
The Boston Globe offers this report.
John McCain and Signing Statements
I was listening to a podcast of this compelling episode of This American Life. Act III interviews Charlie Savage, who in turn interviewed McCain, Clinton, and Obama about various aspects of executive power. According to Charlie, Sen. McCain said he would not issue signing statements; he would just sign or veto bills (no mention of the pocket veto). I thought that was an interesting approach, and I wonder if a President McCain would stick with it.
By the way, though This American Life is my favorite radio show, there were a couple of errors on this episode, including referring to Senator Schumer in the opening of the show as "Congressman Schumer."
UPDATE: A number of people have written to say that it s not a breach of protocol to refer to a member of Congress as a "Congressman" or "Congresswoman." That may well be, but it strikes me as an extremely rare use of the term these days.
"Many Superdelegates in No Hurry to Pick a Candidate"
The Washington Post offers this report.
April 05, 2008
Adam Liptak to Cover Supreme Court for NY Times
I have already mentioned how much we all depend upon Linda Greenhouse's tremendous abilities in covering the Supreme Court for the NY Times and how difficult it will be to fill her shoes.
So I was very happy to read that her Times colleague, Adam Liptak, is going to succeed her on the beat. Adam is very sharp, knowledgeable across a broad range of legal issues, and through his sidebar column especially has shown himself to be an engaging writer. He's quite a worthy successor to Linda. Good luck, Adam.
April 04, 2008
"Arizona Secretary of State prepares for legal action against the EAC"
The latest from Electionline Weekly.
"Safeguarding Electronic Voting"
The NY Times offers this editorial.
"McCain returns $3m in checks as he considers public funding"
The Boston Globe offers this report. "In another sign that John McCain is moving toward accepting public financing this fall, the Republican's campaign is returning about $3 million in checks to contributors who have given money for his general election campaign, funds he could not use if he opts into the public system."
We might say that Sen. McCain was against public financing before he was for it. (Or something like that.)
On Party Line Vote, Eleventh Circuit Panel Reverses Grant of Preliminary Injunction Barring Florida from Enforcing Its Rules for "Matching" Registration Data for Voters
You can find the very important 2-1 decision and dissent here. Though this is a ruling nominally on a preliminary injunction, it decides the legal issue in a way that clearly would apply to a final ruling on the merits as well. In reading this opinion, and the dissent by Judge Barkett, I was struck by the echoes of the Democratic/Republican judicial debates over the constitutionality of the new voter identification laws. Indeed, Judge Barkett relies upon dissents in Crawford to make many of her points. The case reaffirms my worries about the politicization of election law issues by the courts.
I do not know enough about the politics of Eleventh Circuit en banc review to know whether this case has a good chance of being taken up, but it is an important case both doctrinally and politically. With Florida again a swing state in the presidential election, these disputes over voter registration can have a real effect on electoral outcomes.
Howard has more here.
Bauer on Mann on the "Collapse" of the U.S. Campaign Financing System
See here. I imagine the recent issue of The Forum will inspire a number of posts by Bob.
Sad News: Herb Alexander Has Passed Away
Michael Malbin has sent the following announcement to the Election Law Listserv:
- It is my sad duty to inform readers of this list that Herbert E. Alexander, the dean of campaign finance scholarship in the United States, died of cancer on Thursday April 3. He was 80 years old.
Alexander was Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Southern California and had been director of the Citizens' Research Foundation from its inception in 1958 through his retirement in 1998. For twenty years, he also served as chairman of the International Political Science Association's Research Committee on Political Finance and Political Corruption. For the past ten years he lived in Silver Spring, Maryland for the past ten years, with his most recent work---a comparative project on disclosure in collaboration with the International Foundation for Election Systems---published in 2003. A longer obituary will be printed in coming months in PS: Political Science and Politics, a publication of the American Political Science Association.
Services will be held at 1:00 p.m. on Sunday, April 6, at Danzansky-Goldberg Memorial Chapel, Rockville, Maryland. Interment will follow at Judean Memorial Gardens, Olney, Maryland.
Shortly before he died, Professor Alexander gave the Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) a complete collection of his published works, ranging from his well known collection of twenty full length books to peer reviewed articles, published reports and many other items – about 400 titles in all. CFI will be setting up a library of these works in its offices and will also set up a Herbert E. Alexander page with some of this material on its website. CFI will also be sponsoring a reception in Herb's memory at the 2008 annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, to be held in Boston on August 28-31.
Herb was predeceased by his wife Nancy G. Alexander and granddaughter Victoria Alexander. He is survived by three sons, Michael (Sandra) of East Windsor, New Jersey; Andrew (Lisa) of Toronto, Canada; and Kenneth (Susan) of Olney, Maryland; five grandchildren; and his companion, Barbara B. Seidel.
Michael J. Malbin
Herb was one of the pioneers in the field, and deeply committed to its growth. He was a fine man and will be missed.
"Political confusion: Removal letter confuses law-abiding voters"
This story from Georgia begins: "Hundreds of letters telling people they are convicted felons and can no longer vote were received by Columbus residents last week -- letters that many people say aren't correct."
"Judge: Iowa voting forms violate official English law"
I don't think we've heard the end of this.
"FEC Nomination Impasse Stalls Disclosure of Bundling Data"
The Washington Post offers this report.
April 03, 2008
"Missouri registers fewer poor to vote"
The Kansas City Star offers this report. For more on the recent congressional hearing, see here and here.
"Dems vow political crossover crackdown"
This news from Indiana is interesting. I hope to have more on this soon.
Two New Reports from the Campaign Finance Institute
See February Fundraising Frenzy for Presidential Candidates and Fast Start for Soft Money Groups in 2008 Election.
"Political Equality, the Internet, and Campaign Finance Regulation"
I have just published this article in The Forum. You can also access it through my blog here. Here is the abstract:
- Despite signs from the 2004 presidential election contest pointing to a larger role for "big money" in the 2008 season, the indicia so far suggest that there is much for egalitarians to cheer. Egalitarians believe that unequal distribution of wealth should play less of a role in determining presidential election outcomes and/or the policies of the president once elected. At this point in the 2008 election season, it appears that big money is beginning to matter less, rather than more, thanks in large part to the enhanced role of the Internet in campaigning and fundraising, and especially thanks to the viability of campaigns funded substantially by small donors. Such a shift is especially important given that the United States Supreme Court has grown increasingly hostile to campaign finance regulation. The promise of small donors, rather than regulation, stands the best chance of countering the role of big money in future presidential elections.
"Has the U.S. Campaign Finance System Collapsed?"
That's the provocative title of the latest issue of the Forum. (To access, use your academic library's BEPress subscription, or log in as a guest.)
Here is the introduction to the issue:
- This issue of The Forum is organized around the question, "Has the American campaign finance regime collapsed?" Thomas Mann, Ray La Raja, Michael Malbin, and Richard Briffault take four different and distinctive routes into examining that question on a grand scale. Next, David Magleby, Clyde Wilcox, and Richard Hasen immerse it in the events of 2008, evaluating the unprecedented fundraising by the presidential candidates and speculating about what this implies for future politics. Jennifer Steen, Susan Clark Muntean, and Michael Franz turn the question around, asking about the impact of campaign finance rules on other offices and other players, especially the organized interests. And Allison Hayward closes by asserting that it may not be worth worrying about these issues, through a focus on the practice of "bundling."
In other articles, Laurel Elder attends to the widening partisan gender gap among office-seekers and its consequences for the representation of women. Charles Jones asks what a student of politics should derive from Robert Novak's autobiography, The Prince of Darkness. Stacey Pelika and Gregg Frazer then offer very different takes on Diana Mutz, Hearing the Other Side. Lastly, in reviews germane to the central theme of this issue, Burdett Loomis comments on Richard Skinner's More than Money, and Ken Mayer writes about John Sample's The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform and Ray La Raja's Small Change.
I'll be putting up a separate post on my own contribution to this symposium.
"DNC Stance Suprises Campaigns"
Politico offers this interesting report, which begins: "The Democratic National Committee said Tuesday that Florida and Michigan members will be seated on the three standing committees -- including the critical Credentials Committee -- at the party's 2008 national convention, a position that could affect the selection of the Democratic nominee."
Draft Republican Party Presidential Primary Schedule for 2012
Marc Ambinder has the details.
"State Tectonics: How Redistricting Will Shift the Political Landscape"
Politics Magazine offers this report.
"Wisconsin Voters Excise Editing From Governor's Veto Powers"
This very interesting article appears in today's NY Times.
Incumbent Wisconsin State Supreme Court Justice Loses Election to Challenger
This occurred for the first time in more than 40 years. More coverage here and here.
April 02, 2008
"EAC Releases Two Quick Start Management Guides for Election Officials; Brochures provide tips on developing an audit trail, serving military and overseas citizen voters"
See this press release.
Part 2 of Ned Foley on the Extension of Polling Place Hours
See here.
Why Tuesday? Video Chat with Ed Felton on Electronic Voting and Other Topics
See here.
Elections Canada Report on New Voter Identification Requirement
It is available here.
Two from Art Levine
At the Huffington Post, he's written House Panel Launches Probe: Did FBI Ignore Threats To Jail Black Voters?.
At American Prospect, he's written The Republican War on Voting.
"Voting Technology: The Not-So-Simple Act of Casting a Ballot"
The transcript and video of this AEI-Brookings Election Reform Project event is now available.
April 01, 2008
"Colorado Petition Draws Charges of Deception"
The NY Times offers this report.
"No Clearance for von Spakovksy"
Gerry Hebert reacts to this WaPo story.
" Hearing Highlights Mixed Compliance, DoJ Inaction on Public Assistance Voter Registration Requirement"
Demos has written this blog post at The Hill's Congress blog.
News Roundup of Stories on Cert Denial in Rep. Jefferson Speech or Debate Clause Case
Here.
"Clinton's convention strategy in doubt"
The Politico offers this report, which begins: "If the fight over whether to count the results in Florida and Michigan makes it to the Democratic National Convention, Hillary Clinton will not have enough pledged votes on the 169-member Credentials Committee to deliver a majority decision in her favor, according to an analysis conducted for Politico."