"Democrats Revisit Presidential Race Rules"

"The Caucus" blog at NYT offers this report.

"GOP's closed-primary plan may violate R.I, not US law"

The Boston Globe offers this report.

Joan Biskupic on the Legacy of Bush v. Gore

Here, at her new blog. This is a topic I've tackled as well.

Electionline Publishes "The List 2010"

Here.

"The Elysian Foundations of Election Law"

Luke McLoughlin has posted the final draft of his Temple Law Review article. Here is the abstract:

Three decades ago, John Hart Ely described and defended a theory of judicial review founded upon clearing the channels of political change and facilitating the representation of minorities. Ely's argument has had a mixed legacy in constitutional law, its principles inexorably present in constitutional theory and its applications seemingly unrealized in most contexts. Yet for all the criticism the theory received, features of Ely's theory are ingrained today as organizing principles in the election law jurisprudence, the realm where Ely’s channel-clearing argument has the most traction. Ely's modern-day heirs in the election law field advocate approaches that evince an overriding concern for the casting of a meaningful vote, for robust political competition, and for policing the process of representation - all preeminent Elysian concerns. These advocates have faced critiques tracking those that Ely faced, particularly the indeterminacy critique. Ely’s work has latent, overlooked lessons in responding to these objections, and this Article seeks to return them to prominence. In this Article, Luke McLoughlin takes Ely out of the “Cf.” footnote to which he is often relegated and contends that the strengths and weaknesses of Democracy and Distrust have important insights for the body of current election law debates. The trajectory of Democracy and Distrust’s argument as well as the argument’s mixed legacy show that judicial review of the political process is more justifiable and effective where empirical evidence clearly demonstrates a representational burden, channel blockage, or democratic harm. Empirical evidence is important to the crafting of doctrine in any field of law and to all types of judicial decision making, but it is particularly crucial to doctrines governing the law of politics, which often rely (as Ely's theory did) on accounts of and assumptions about legislative motivation and political behavior. McLoughlin makes visible the undercurrent of Elysian concepts in contemporary debates about election law doctrine, and contends that Democracy and Distrust has concrete meaning and insight for the election law field beyond its mutually opposing positions as obligatory footnote and "holy grail" of judicial review. Courts have relied on a variety of standards, tests, and presumptions in crafting election law doctrine, sometimes based on strong empirics and other times on conjecture or conceptions of more ephemeral harms. McLoughlin contends that, by applying the obscured lessons of Ely's work, scholars and courts constructing election law doctrine can proffer and benefit from empirically convincing accounts of institutional and political dynamics in cases involving the law of the political process.

"CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES RAISED $1.42 BILLION IN 2007-2008"

The FEC has issued this press release.

"'Why the delay' on Supreme Court's campaign-finance case?"

USA Today offers this report.

Lowenstein-Woocher Team Up to Reverse Prop. 11's Citizen Redistricting Commission?

My internet connection is not letting me download the full measure, but it looks like my good friend Dan is the proponent of this measure going into circulation, with Fred Woocher providing the legal support. Capital Notes suggests the tack is to focus on the costs of having redistricting done by the commission. That may be smart politics, but I'm sure that's not what's motivating Dan and whoever else (I would guess organized Democratic party interests) is behind this new measure: it is to keep the power with the (Democratically-controlled) legislature.

" Plain Talk: Using popular vote to elect president is the way to go"

Dave Zweifel has written this opinion piece for The Capital Times.

"States in play: An early look at 2011 redistricting"

This item appears at WaPo's "The Fix" blog [corrected link].

"Voting Section Chief Out Amid Controversy"

Main Justice offers this report, which begins: "Veteran Civil Rights Division attorney Christopher Coates is no longer chief of the Voting Section, according to the division's Web site." The Washington Times offers Justice transfers Panthers pursuer out of D.C. office.

" A chaotic year for California ballot propositions"

The LA Times offers this report.

"Republican Party Sues to Overturn San Diego Law Making it Illegal for Parties to Contribute to Candidates for City Office"

Richard Winger reports.

"Justin Levitt Speaks on Alternative Voting Systems and Redistricting Consequences of Incarceration"

See here.

"New Population Estimates Show Additional Changes For 2009 Congressional Apportionment, With Many States Sitting Close to the Edge for 2010"

Election Data Services has issued this press release [corrected link and release title].

Election Law Roundup: Week in Review

Here are some items of interest that popped up during the last week when I was not blogging.

Peter Overby had this Christmas morning NPR "Morning Edition" story on campaign finance reform over the last decade.

"The Caucus" blog at NYT offers this reapportionment roundup on the latest census projections, which will affect both representation in Congress and the electoral college map in 2012.

The Congressional Research Service has issued this report on ACORN investigations.

The Wisconsin State Journal reports that "Wisconsin Right to Life filed a federal lawsuit Friday seeking to nullify parts of the Impartial Justice Act signed by Gov. Jim Doyle on Dec. 1, saying it infringes on the anti-abortion group's right to free speech. The complaint asks that a federal court strike down portions of the law that give Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates who accept public financing additional money to counter independent expenditures." Relatedly, Brad Smith has written this oped in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. See also this press release about the suit filed by CCP.

BNA reports on two alternative FEC drafts regarding both rejecting broad federal preemption of state anti-robocall laws. More on Wisconsin anti-robocall efforts here.

BNA also reports ($) that "The latest in a series of duelling statements from Republican and Democratic members of the Federal Election Commission concerns requirements to use regulated 'hard money' for statements that 'promote, support, attack, or oppose' a federal candidate."

The Campaign Finance Institute has issued a "save the date" for a January 14 event, "Reform in an Age of Networked Campaigns: Fostering Participation through Small Donors and Volunteers."

The St. Petersburg Times has published an editorial, "Florida rules leave too many voteless."

The Center for Governmental Studies has issued a new report, "Loopholes, Tricks and End Runs: Evasions of Campaign Finance laws, and a Model Law to Block Them." (View press release and this AP report.)

Demos has issued this press release on counting prisoners during the census.

Sad news: Michael E. Lavelle Sr., Dean of Chicago election lawyers, has passed away.

Joshua S. Stillman has published a student note in the NYU Law Review, "The Costs of 'Discernoble and Manageable Standards' in Vieth and Beyond."

Roll Call has published this interesting piece on clergy donations to federal campaigns and committees.

And the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board has issued this release on absentee voting changes in the state.

Pretty busy for the week before Christmas!

"Battle Lines: The Next Redistricting Brawl"

National Journal offers this report ($).

"All Military Installations to Aid in Voter Registration"

The NYT offers this report.

Light Blogging Through New Years

I'm going to be doing some traveling, including to some places where the Internet connection is iffy. I hope to post from time to time, though between family, travel, grading, and finishing up some writing assignments, I do not expect to get back to full steam on the blog until 1/4/10.

Happy holidays!

"FEC Members Clash over Family Gifts"

Politico offers this report. My earlier coverage of this controversy is here.

See also this report on the PBS&J matter.

"Law Blocking Acorn Funding Raises Constitutional Question"

The WSJ offers this report.

Linda Greenhouse on the Citizens United "Hurry Up and Wait"

Don't miss Linda's latest NYT online column, which concludes:

Now it appears that the chief justice and his allies may have overreached. With 37 cases argued so far this term, the court left town having decided a scant four. There is some speculation that a prolonged internal struggle over how far to go in Citizens United has sucked the air out of the term. The court's silence, of course, proves only that it had nothing ready for prime time. Perhaps a tactical retreat to minimalism is in the offing, as happened last term, when the court's conservatives teed up a constitutional evisceration of the Voting Rights Act, only to back down in the end.

I may not be sure what I think about how to regulate money in politics, but I'm confident of this prediction: that no matter how the court rules, it will not fix the old problems and -- if the past is any guide-- just might create new ones.

Latest Fairvote e-Newsletter Now Available

Here.

"FEC APPROVES STEPS TO COMPLY WITH EMILY'S LIST OPINION, ELECTS 2010 OFFICERS"

See this press release.

"Director's Note: Wait...This Was an OFF-YEAR?!?"

Doug Chapin muses in the new Electionline Weekly.

"No Appeal in Emily's List Case"

SCOTUSBlog reports on the decision of the attorney general not to file a cert. petition in the Emily's List case. AG Holder's letter to House Speaker Pelosi notes that similar issues are before the D.C. Circuit en banc in the SpeechNow case, which could potentially overrule some aspects of Emily's List.

Was this the right call? I think so. As I've written, "The Supreme Court is the last place you want to be right now if you are trying to get progressive election law upheld." Better to roll the dice with the D.C. Circuit.

The Health Care Bill, The Filibuster, and the House-Senate Conference

I had been thinking about writing something about the idea that the House would just acquiesce in voting for the Senate version of the health care bill, thereby avoiding a conference (and avoiding the chance that the House-Senate conference could produce a bill that would cause the defection of at least one Senator in the coalition). That worked for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and it could work on health care too. I had not seen any mention of avoiding a conference until this, from Paul Starr, who writes: "If things go as well as may be realistically expected, the Senate will pass a bill no later than January. Under normal circumstances, a House-Senate conference would then write a final bill, which would have to be approved by each house. But because of the difficulty in keeping all 60 votes in the Senate, congressional leaders may have to weigh another option: just putting the Senate bill up for a vote in the House."

Calling a vote on the Senate bill (with presumably improved abortion language from her perspective) could be appealing to Speaker Pelosi as well. I don't know enough about the details of the two bills to know if there are any potential dealbreakers in the Senate bill from the perspective of the House leadership.

Meanwhile, in a typically provocative and thoughtful post, Jack Balkin sees this as the moment that President Obama must confront the filibuster directly and potentially go for the nuclear option. Jack concludes; "The question is whether this will be Obama's greatest victory or his political Waterloo. American politics is getting very interesting indeed."

"Black leaders urge census to change how it counts inmates"

The Washington Post offers this report, which begins: "A coalition of African American leaders concerned about minorities being undercounted in the 2010 Census called Wednesday for inmates at federal and state prisons to be tallied in their home communities instead of the towns where they are incarcerated. "

"Parliamentarian Stokes Republican Ire"

Roll Call offers this report ($), which begins: "Republicans accused Senate Parliamentarian Alan Frumin of being biased toward Democrats on Wednesday after he made a procedural ruling that allowed Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to short-circuit GOP efforts to derail his health care overhaul legislation."

Final Version of "The Democracy Canon" Now Available

The Stanford Law Review has now published the final version of my article, The Democracy Canon, 62 Stan. L. Rev. 69 (2009). Chris Elmendorf has written a response that will appear in the Cornell Law Review, and I've begun work on a reply. I hope to post a draft of that reply in January.

For those interested in this topic, I'd also highly recommend Justin Levitt's The Dynamic Nature of Materiality and the Values of the Vote.

Consent Decree in Port Chester Case to Be Presented to Trial Judge Thursday

You can read it here.

"SpeechNow Seeks Immunity for '527 Groups'"

The Campaign Legal Center has posted this blog post about this amicus brief in the SpeechNow case, which is basically an attack on the reasoning of the related issues in the "Emily's List" case. The issues here are surely to be a major focus of attention at the D.C. en banc oral argument on January 27.

"Congress Travels More, Public Pays"

The Wall Street Journal offers this report, which begins: "The expenses racked up by U.S. lawmakers traveling here for a conference last month included one for the 'control room.' Besides rooms for sleeping, the 12 members of the House of Representatives rented their hotel's fireplace-equipped presidential suite and two adjacent rooms. The hotel cleared out the beds and in their place set up a bar, a snack room and office space. The three extra rooms -- stocked with liquor, Coors beer, chips and salsa, sandwiches, Mrs. Fields cookies and York Peppermint Patties -- cost a total of about $1,500 a night. They were rented for five nights. While in Scotland, the House members toured historic buildings. Some shopped for Scotch whisky and visited the hotel spa. They capped the trip with a dinner at one of the region's finest restaurants, paid for by the legislators, who got $118 daily stipends for meals and incidentals. Eleven of the 12 legislators then left the five-day conference two days early."

"Pew Study Calculates the Real Cost of Voter Registration"

The Pew Center on the States has issued this press release, which begins: "Oregon spent more than $9.7 million--or $4.51 per active registered voter--on its voter registration system during the 2008 election according to a new report released today by The Pew Center on the States. Conducted with the assistance of Oregon state and local election officials, "The Real Cost of Voter Registration" is the first comprehensive analysis of its kind and provides a model for other states to estimate their expenses and establish a basis for evaluating efforts to modernize."

"The Battle Over Bilingual Ballots"

James Tucker's book, The Battle Over Bilingual Ballots: Language Minorities and Political Access Under the Voting Rights Act is now available.

I have not yet received a copy, but it has some very strong blurbs from people in the know, and James is one of the leading experts in the country on this aspect of the VRA.

Eugene Volokh on Prop. 8 Campaign Materials Disclosure Case

Following up on this post, Eugene offers a somewhat different and no doubt better informed view of the merits of the Ninth Circuit opinion in this case. His view is that the opinion seems sensible but might conflict with controlling Supreme Court precedent.

"Which Justices on the Supreme Court Use Legislative History?"

David Zaring has this post at "The Conglomerate."

The Latest FEC Skirmish

In MUR 5724. Republican Commissioners Peterson and Hunter (with McGahn recused) write: "The Commission's contradictory approaches in past matters involving family gifts provide inadequate notice to the regulated community about what is permitted and what is not. At this point, respect for due process and fundamental fairness demands that the Commission articulate, either by rule or through policy statement, the permissible boundaries relating to family gifts before pursuing future enforcement actions in this area." Democratic commissioners Weintraub and Bauerly respond: "The Commission's failure to enforce the law in any particular case does not change the law, entitle individuals to ignore the law, or so 'hopelessly muddle' the law that it can no longer be enforced." (More from BNA.)

A reader sympathetic to the Democratic commissioners' position queries: "Does an FEC Commissioner's public announcement that he or she will not enforce a provision of FECA that has been validly enacted and specifically upheld by the Supreme Court constitute good cause that would justify the commissioner's removal by the President?"

"Commas key in battle to control Philly newspapers?"

AP offers this report, which begins: "The future of Philadelphia's two major newspapers could turn on a pair of commas in the bankruptcy code."

Graduate Student Research Project

One of the disadvantages of teaching in my law school, where there are no PhD students to work with, is that I get ideas for some potentially important projects, but no one to take them on. I recall blogging during Coleman-Franken about an idea for seeing if decisions on disputed ballots might be subconsciously influenced by partisan bias, and I was glad to see that Kyle Kopko and his co-authors took up the project (and did a splendid job, I might add).

Here's another one: it would be great for a PhD student to try to gain access to the Prop-11 created California Redistricting Commission as an observer. The student would attend all the meetings and deliberations, without participating at all. It would give us great insight into how such citizen commissions work: what influences decisions, how do participants interact, etc.

It would be a great service to the field to know much more about the inner workings of these commissions. Now I'm not sure if the Commission would agree to be studied (perhaps upon some ground rules about what could be disclosed, and when). But I would sure love to send someone to try!

"Working Families Party Documents Subpoenaed"

The NY Times offers this report.

Lowenstein Festschrift Registration Now Open

I earlier blogged about this terrific event honoring the election law scholarship of Dan Lowenstein. We've got a really tremendous lineup for the event, which will be all day January 29 at UCLA Law.

Registration has now opened for the event, which you can do by clicking on this link. Registration is free.

I hope to see many of you there.

Amar Lecture on Bush v. Gore, Responses, Now Available

The December 2009 issue of the Florida Law Review is now available. The issue includes:

Dunwody Distinguished Lecture in Law

Bush, Gore, Florida, and the Constitution

Akhil Reed Amar (61 Fla. L. Rev. 945)


The Meaning of Bush v. Gore Thoughts on Professor Amar's Analysis

Erwin Chemerinsky (61 Fla. L. Rev. 969)


Bush v. Gore and the Lawlessness Principle: A Comment on Professor Amar

Richard L. Hasen (61 Fla. L. Rev. 979)


From Bush v. Gore to NAMUDNO: A Response to Professor Amar

Ellen D. Katz (61 Fla. L. Rev. 727)


Bush v. Gore at the Dawning of the Age of Obama

Nelson Lund (61 Fla. L. Rev. 1001)

"A Holiday Gift for Ohio's Low-Income Voters"

Lisa Danetz blogs.

"Counting Us Out? Why Everyone Should Care About the Census Undercount"

This event by Demos is happening tonight in NYC.

"Is Everyone Else Doing It? Indiana's Voter Identification Law in International Perspective"

Frederic Schaffer and Tova Wang have written this article for the Harvard Law and Policy Review.

Voter ID Measure to 2010 CA Ballot?

Could happen.

"More companies are disclosing their political activity"

USA Today offers this report.

"McCubbins from UC San Diego to Southern California"

Leiter has the scoop on this important hire.

American Original: A Great Read

I've just had a chance to read Joan Biskupic's biography of Justice Scalia, American Original: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

I highly recommend it. It is engagingly written, and paints a fascinating picture of the Supreme Court's most interesting Justice. It is part history, part psychoanalysis, and it was a hard book to put down--both because of my fascination with the subject of the book, and because of Joan's no nonsense, clean writing style.

There's not much new on election law in the book. The book does cover Justice Scalia's "Get over it" response to Bush v. Gore, and it does so in a wider context.

One election law fact that I have not seen reported anywhere before is about a draft Justice Scalia opinion in Chisom v. Roemer. On page 168, Joan reports of the drafting process: "Scalia began drafting a dissenting opinion that not only would have restricting the Voting Rights Act coverage to legislators but would have dramatically curtailed its protections against any kind of redistricting that diluted African American voting strength."

I have not seen that draft opinion, which did not make it into Justice Scalia's published dissent in the case. And it is not clear to me how different it is from Justice Thomas's Holder v. Hall concurrence, which Justice Scalia joined. But I would love to take a look at that opinion next time I'm near the library of Congress and can take a look at Justice Blackmun's or Justice Marshall's case files.

Historical Quote of the Day

"WASHINGTON, Dec. 16--The Supreme Court recessed until Jan. 12 today without ruling on the legality of the new campaign law..."
---New York Times, Supreme Court Delays Ruling on New Campaign Law, Dec. 17, 1975, on the Court's expected decision in Buckley v. Valeo. The court decided that case on January 30, 1976.

"Court Keeps Campaigns in Suspense"

Adam Liptak has written this blog post for the NYT's "The Caucus blog."

See also Tony Mauro's BLT post.

"A Look at the Obama Administration's Lobbying Initiatives"

A roundup from the Campaign Legal Center.

Redistricting Games You Can Play at Home

Here.

"Veil Thine Eyes; What will it take for the Senate to abolish the filibuster? Just a little Rawlsian magic"

Nicholas Stephanopoulos has written this piece for The New Republic.

And perhaps not a moment too soon.

"The Supreme Court Leaves Washington in the Lurch"

Politico offers this report on the Supreme Court's failure to issue an opinion this year in Citizens United.

""Appeals court denies gay marriage supporters' bid for Prop. 8 communications"

The L.A. Times offers this report about this Ninth Circuit ruling. (LVHB.) It seems to me that the Ninth Circuit's opinion makes a lot of sense in how to balance these competing concerns.

"Phila. ethics task force suggests regulating lobbyists"

The Philadelphia Inquirer offers this report.

"Deadlocked FEC Vote Dismisses Charges Of Illegal Contributions by Florida Company"

BNA reports on another 3-3 partisan split. In this case, though employees of the company investigated went to jail for illegal contributions, the FEC Republican commissioners voted against enforcement against the company under investigation. "Documents placed on the FEC website Dec. 10 indicated that the PBSJ case--designated Matter Under Review (MUR) 5903--was dropped after the six FEC commissioners deadlocked 3-3, along party lines, on an FEC staff recommendation to pursue the matter."

Breaking News: CU in 2010

The Supreme Court will not issue any opinion on Monday. The next chance for Citizens United is January. Wow!

Regular Blogging to Resume Monday

See you then.

"Senate passes election changes; Compromise to be sought with Ohio House bill"

The Columbus Dispatch offers this report.

Republicans May Use Bartlett v. Strickland to Argue Against Allowing Vote on Florida Redistricting Ballot Measure

See this AP report. Are only California Republicans interested in making redistricting less political?

Covington's Political Law Update Now Available

Here.

"Illinois Limits Donations in Elections"

The NY Times offers this report.

Utah Commission Recommends Automatic and Portable Voter Registration

See here.

"Gavin: 'Staggering' Number of Lobbyists Are Failing to Report Political Contributions"

BNA offers this report, which begins: "Over 1,700 federally registered lobbyists were referred to the Justice Department in the first half of this year because they did not file required reports detailing their political contributions and other spending linked to lawmakers, a top Senate disclosure official said Dec. 8 at an international ethics conference here."

"California to find out if politics can be sterile"

Read this Ventura County Star article on choosing members of California's redistricting commission established by Prop. 11.

Is Citizens United Drafting Sapping the Justices' Energies and Affecting Their Work Product? And What Does it Mean for a Citizens United Opinion?

John Elwood, who is an uncommonly qualified observer, suggests it may be so. He points to the relatively simple and uninteresting opinions that emerged today, asking, in essence, "what took so long?"

The question is how much pressure the Court sees to resolve Citizens United quickly. Here's why I think there's pressure:

(1) the case is left over from last term

(2) the jurisdictional statute (in BCRA) mandates that the cases be expedited, and I know from my examination of the drafting history of Buckley v. Valeo, the Court takes such expedite language seriously

(3) the Court understands that its rulings affect campaign behavior, and it won't be long before the 2010 primary season gets into full swing

So I'd think the opinion comes out on Monday, Dec. 14, the last opportunity this calendar year. But I've been wrong already on timing. And I've got a beverage-of-choice bet with another very knowledgeable Supreme Court observer who thinks we won't see an opinion Monday---that the tough issues in the case (tough issues of the Court's own making, I might add) are going to take longer to resolve than this.

"Elections complaint against St. Petersburg mayoral candidate Wagman dismissed"

The St. Petersburg Times offers this report, which begins: "The Florida Elections Commission has decided that Internet ads used by mayoral candidate Scott Wagman this summer didn't violate election rules, though the group is recommending that lawmakers clarify how old campaign laws should apply to new media. A complaint had been filed with the commission claiming Wagman's ads violated elections law because they didn't include disclaimers declaring them "political advertisement paid for and approved by Scott Wagman for mayor."

"Ohio Election Fraud: Convicted Felons Illegally Worked for Anti-Smoking Initiative"

This post appears at the "Big Government" blog.

"Lani's Heir; The new, old racial ideology of the Holder Justice Department"

Abby Thernstrom has written this piece for the National Review ($) on alternative voting remedies in voting rights suits. A snippet:

It's a nice theory: proportional-representation systems' encouraging more black voters to define themselves by qualities other than race. Fewer Eric Holders ("I am the black U.S.Attorney") and more Ward Connerlys. But it's unlikely to happen.

More probable is a heightened emphasis on race by black candidates who depend on black voters' thinking about racial identity as Holder does - and even more stress on the importance of race by DOJ attorneys who have long assessed the level of black representation by counting blacks in elected office. In this case, we will be stuck with race-drenched politics into the indefinite future.

Michael Carvin, one of the nation's foremost voting-rights litigators, puts the point well: "Cumulative voting and limited voting enshrine forever race-based legislative seats. Blacks and Hispanics will not see themselves as part of an integrated whole and vote accordingly. There will be color-coded voting into the future as far as the eye can see."

So Far The Court Has Posted Four Opinions on Its Website

Here, but CU is not yet listed. Nor is it listed here.

UPDATE: SCOTUSBlog reports no Citizens United opinion today.

As We are Awaiting a Possible Opinion in Citizens United...

The WSJ offers this look at how a ruling overturning Austin would affect state campaign finance laws.

And BNA looks at state and local laws that could be affected.

"I remember when corporate political expenditures were illegal."

Eric Brown imagines a post-Citizens United world.

"ACORN report: Disorganized, not criminal"

Ben Smith blogs on this report written by the Proskauer firm at ACORN's request.

Meanwhile, Eliza considers whether anti-ACORN legislation is an unconstitutional "bill of attainder."

"Ethics Rules for Congress Curb but Don't End Trips"

The NY Times offers this front-page report.

"Department of Justice Rejects Redistricting"

News from Georgia. [Note: An earlier version of this post incorrectly listed "Florida" as the relevant state. Thanks to numerous readers for pointing out the error.]

"Reformers Wary of Supreme Court Ruling But Say It Could Spark Public Financing Bill"

BNA offers this report ($).

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Pens Oped About New Disqualification Rule

See here. Howard rounds up more Wisconsin and Michigan stories on post-Caperton issues.

" Vernon's ex-mayor and his wife are convicted of voter fraud"

The LA Times offers this report.

"DNC Headed For Super-Delegate Fight"

Hotline on Call offers this report (via Political Wire).

"First Opinions Expected Tuesday"

SCOTUSBlog reports. No idea if Citizens United will be one of them.

"A Closer Look at CRS's Recent Report 'Lobbying and the Executive Branch'"

This post appears at the Sunlight Foundation blog.

American Spectator Takes Aim at Soros and Secretary of State Project

See here.

John Elwood Reading the Tea Leaves on the Delay in Issuing Supreme Court Opinions

See here. The next possible decision day is Dec. 8.

I'll just note this (following up on this post):

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, No. 02-1674. Argued September 8, 2003--Decided December 10, 2003

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No 08-205. (Re-)Argued September 9, 2009--Decided ?

"Prop. 8 backers likely to win disclosure fight"

The SF Chronicle offers this report, which begins: "A federal judge probably violated the Constitution when he ordered backers of Proposition 8, the initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California, to give their campaign strategy documents to opponents trying to overturn the measure, an appeals court said Thursday."

I have not yet seen the 9th Circuit's order, and I can't find it (without logging into PACER) on the spiffy new Ninth Circuit's web page.

LVHB.

"President Obama's lobbying reforms praised by Congressional Research Service"

Politico offers this report.

Michigan State Law Review Publishes Symposium on "Administrative Statutory Interpretation"

You can find the articles here.

"A growing gripe among Obama donors: not enough perks"

Not the same as it ever was.

"Citizens United, Corporate Personhood and the Constitution: CAC Releases Discussion Draft of New Report in Advance of Major Supreme Court Ruling"

This item appears at "Text and History."

Rep. Steve King Makes Strongly Critical Comments About Bob Bauer's Appointment as White House Counsel

See here.

"'A Chicken-Stealer Shall Lose His Vote' - Disfranchisement for Larceny in the South, 1874-1890"

Pippa Holloway has posted this article on SSRN (Journal of Southern History, Vol. 75, No. 4, pp. 931-962, November 2009 ). Here is the abstract:

Between 1874 and 1882 all southern states (except Texas) amended their constitutions and revised their laws to disfranchise for petty theft. These revisions were part of a larger effort to disfranchise African American voters and to restore the Democratic party to political dominance in the region. This expansion of disfranchisement took the form of statutory revision, constitutional amendment, and judicial action. Some southern states changed their laws to upgrade misdemeanor property crimes to felonies. Felonies were already disfranchising offenses in most of these states. Several states amended or revised their constitutions to expand disfranchisement to include larceny and/or petit larceny. Two southern states that had never disfranchised for any crimes amended their constitutions to establish this penalty for the first time in the 1870s. Finally, southern courts interpreted existing laws to include misdemeanors as disfranchising crimes. While Democrats celebrated the success of these laws in disfranchising African Americans, Republicans criticized their racial and partisan impact. Although Democrats used a variety of techniques to ensure their electoral dominance, these new laws were one tool used by Democrats to deny the vote to Republicans in some of the most tightly-contested elections of this period. This article concludes with a discussion of the symbolic role that chicken theft played in discussions of petty theft. Experiences from the 1870s and 1880s demonstrate that partisan advantage can be obtained from laws disfranchising for crime, particularly when election officials with a partisan agenda exploit racially-skewed conviction and incarceration rates.

"CRS Report Says Obama's Restrictions Have Changed Lobbyists' Ties to Officials"

BNA ($) offers this report,which begins: "A new Congressional Research Service report on lobbying concluded that the Obama administration's recently adopted restrictions on federally registered lobbyists' access to executive branch agencies have "already changed the relationship between lobbyists and covered executive branch officials."

If anyone has a link to the CRS report, please send it along and I will post it.

UPDATE: I have posted the CRS report at this link.

"Campaign neophyte aims high for secretary of state job"

The Sacramento Bee offers this interesting report on Debra Bowen's potential Republican challenger.

180-Page GAO Report On Civil Rights Enforcement (including VRA Enforcement) at DOJ During the Bush Years is Coming Thursday

The NY Times got a peek and offers a preview.

UPDATE: The GAO report is available here [corrected link].

OSC Finds EAC Did Not Hire General Counsel Applicant Because He Was a Republican

The press release is here. More troubles for this troubled agency.

"U.S. Judge Opposes Republicans on Elections"

The NY Times offers this report, about the RNC-DNC litigation I blogged about yesterday.

Access More Documents from the Republican House ACORN Hearing

Here.

"Doyle signs high court election bill ;Law gives public funds to campaigns that limit spending; challenge likely"

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel offers this report.

"Prop. 8 foes seek initiative sponsors' internal campaign communications"

The latest skirmish over anti-gay marriage propositions and privacy/anonymity.

"Comments to FEC Reflect Divisions On Defining 'Federal Election Activity'"

BNA reports.

Steel Says, Then Backs Off Claim, that Republican Party "Litmus Test" Proposed by Jim Bopp Tied to Cancelling of Bopp Contracts to Defend RNC in Campaign Finance Case

The Washington Times reports. The controversial statement has now been removed from Shawn Steel's Politico column, with this correction appended: "An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that the law firm of the sponsor of a resolution before the Republican National Committee concerning party loyalty had its legal consulting with the committee cut off after Michael Steele's election as chairman earlier this year. The RNC paid the Terre Haute, Ind.-based firm $352,821 in July and $100,000 in October."

Coverage of Today's Republican House ACORN Hearing

Washington Independent, Fox News, Washington Times.

Minnesota IRV Group Fined for Misleading Statements About Endorsements

See here.

"Judge rejects RNC bid to end minority voter protections"

Politico offers this report about this order issued by a federal district court in New Jersey.

UPDATE: I have posted the trial court judge's 79-page opinion here. I have only had a chance to glance at it, but it looks like a must-read. In addition to an interesting finding that the Republican Party has electoral incentives to suppress minority voting for reasons unrelated to racial animus, the trial judge makes detailed findings about the lack of in-person voter fraud in the U.S.

This is surely going to be a major election administration decision, and it will be interesting to see if it is appealed, and if it is appealed, what happens to this case.

"The Voting Rights Act's Secret Weapon: Pocket Trigger Litigation and Dynamic Preclearance"

Travis Crum has posted this draft student note, forthcoming Yale Law Journal) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Following NAMUDNO, the search is on for a way to save Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This Note offers a solution through an examination of the VRA's most obscure provision: Section 3. Commonly called the bail-in mechanism or the pocket trigger, Section 3 authorizes federal courts to place states and political subdivisions that have violated the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments under preclearance.

This Note makes a two-part argument. First, the pocket trigger should be used to alleviate the NAMUDNO Court's anxiety over the coverage formula's differential treatment of the states. The Justice Department and civil rights groups should build off the handful of successful bail-ins and redefine the preclearance regime through litigation.

Second, the pocket trigger serves as a model for a revised VRA. The pocket trigger is more likely to survive the congruence and proportionality test because it replaces an outdated coverage formula with a perfectly tailored coverage mechanism--a constitutional trigger. It also sidesteps the political difficulties in designing a new coverage formula. The pocket trigger has the potential to create dynamic preclearance: a flexible coverage regime that utilizes targeted preclearance and sunset dates. This Note concludes by proposing possible amendments to the pocket trigger, such as adding an effects test or delineating certain violations which automatically trigger preclearance

House Republican Committee Hearings on ACORN

Someone forwarded me an email from Indiana Secretary of State Rokita's communications director reading: "Attached is the testimony and exhibits Secretary Rokita submitted to members of the House Oversight and Government Reform and the Judiciary Committees today in Washington, D.C." It included this prepared testimony.

But when I went to the websites of both house committees, there was no mention of a hearing today. Finally, I found this media advisory explaining that this was a hearing called by House Republicans only, featuring Sec. Rokita, David Caldwell, and Hans von Spakovsky.

"Fearing Fear Itself: Photo Identification Laws, Fear of Fraud, and the Fundamental Right to Vote"

Joel A. Heller has written this student note for the Vanderbilt Law Review.

Latest Caperton Fallout: 4-3 Split on Michigan Supreme Court Over Recusal Rules

See here.

As Massachusetts Goes, So Goes....New Jersey?

The Philadelphia Inquirer offers this report beginning: "A Democratic state lawmaker has introduced a bill that would force Republican Gov.-elect Christopher J. Christie to select a Democrat to replace New Jersey's U.S. senators - both of them Democrats - if either was unable to complete his term."

"SEQUOIA VOTING SYSTEMS' SOURCE CODE FOR NEW FRONTIER ELECTION SYSTEM NOW AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC DOWNLOAD ON COMPANY'S WEBSITE AT WWW.SEQUOIAVOTE.COM"

See this press release.

"Under The Influence Experts Blog Debuts On NationalJournal.com, Providing The Insiders' Take On Lobbying And Advocacy Issues"

Via email comes a press release which begins: "Today National Journal Group enhanced its coverage of the lobbying and advocacy industry with the debut of the Under the Influence Experts blog, which will host weekly, virtual roundtable discussions on ethics, campaign finance and other lobbying issues, drawing on the experience and wisdom of some of the profession's top figures."

"Robocall Exemption Has Activists Talking"

CQ Politics reports.

Part 2 of City Hall Investigative Report into Working Families Party Now Available

Here.

" FEC Implemented Congress' Vision on Travel Rules"

FEC vice chair Matthew Petersen has written this Roll Call oped ($).

No Opinion in Citizens United Today

For more on the possible timing, see here.