Have a Comment?
E-Mail Me at rhasen-AT-law.uci.edu
Election Law Blogger
Rick Hasen (posts)
Guest Bloggers
Heather Gerken (posts)
Justin Levitt (posts)
Nate Persily (posts)
Rick Pildes (posts)
Dan Tokaji (posts)Generously Supported By
ELB Feeds and Email Subscriptions
RSS XML
Get ELB Delivered by E-Mail to Your In-box via Feedburner
Books by Rick
The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown (Yale University Press, coming summer 2012)
Preorder from
Amazon
Barnes and Noble
NEW! Order the e-Chapter sneak preview for reading now:
The Fraudulent Fraud Squad: Understanding the Battle Over Voter ID: A Sneak Preview from "The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown
The Supreme Court and Election Law: Judging Equality from Baker v. Carr to Bush v. Gore (NYU Press 2003) NOW IN PAPER
Book introduction
Table of Contents
Order from Amazon.com
Order from BarnesandNoble.com
Journal of Legislation Symposium on book
The Glannon Guide to Torts: Learning Torts Through Multiple-Choice Questions and Analysis (Aspen Publishers 2d ed. 2011)
Election Law--Cases and Materials (4th edition 2008) (with Daniel Hays Lowenstein and Daniel P. Tokaji
Remedies: Examples & Explanations (Aspen Publishers, 2d ed. 2010)Election Law Resources
Election Law--Cases and Materials (4th edition 2008) (with Daniel Hays Lowenstein and Daniel P. Tokaji)
Election Law Journal
Election Law Listserv homepage
Election Law Teacher Database
Repository of Election Law Teaching Materials (2011 update)
Blogroll/Political News Sites
All About Redistricting (Justin Levitt)
American Constitution Society
Balkinization
Ballot Access News
Brennan Center for Justice
The Brookings Institution's Campaign Finance Page
Buzzfeed Politics
California Election Law (Randy Riddle)
Caltech-MIT/Voting Technology Project (and link to voting technology listserv)
The Caucus (NY Times)
Campaign Legal Center (Blog)
Campaign Finance Institute
Center for Competitive Politics (Blog)
Center for Governmental Studies
Doug Chapin (HHH program)
Concurring Opinions
CQ Politics
Demos
Election Updates
Fairvote
Election Law@Moritz
Electionline.org
Equal Vote (Dan Tokaji)
Federal Election Commission
The Fix (WaPo)
The Hill
How Appealing
Initiative and Referendum Institute
Legal Theory (Larry Solum)
Political Activity Law
Political Wire
Politico
Prawfsblawg
Roll Call
SCOTUSblog
Summary Judgments (Loyola Law faculty blog)
Talking Points Memo
UC Irvine Center for the Study of Democracy
UC Irvine School of Law
USC-Caltech Center for the Study of Law and Politics
The Volokh Conspiracy
Votelaw blog (Ed Still)
Washington Post Politics
Why Tuesday?
Recent Newspapers and Magazine Commentaries
The Real Loser of the Scott Walker Recall? The State of Wisconsin, The New Republic, April 13, 2012
A Court of Radicals: If the justices strike down Obamacare, it may have grave political implications for the court itself, Slate, March 30, 2012
Of Super PACs and Corruption, Politico, March 22, 2012
Texas Voter ID Law May Be Headed to the Supreme Court, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Mar. 13, 2012
“The Numbers Don’t Lie: If you aren’t sure Citizens United gave rise to the Super PACs, just follow the money, Slate, Mar. 9, 2012
Stephen Colbert: Presidential Kingmaker?, Politico, Mar. 5 2012
Occupy the Super PACs; Justice Ginsburg knows the Citizens United decision was a mistake. Now she appears to be ready to speak truth to power, Slate, Feb. 20, 2012
Kill the Caucuses! Maine, Nevada, and Iowa were embarrassing. It’s time to make primaries the rule, Slate, Feb. 15, 2012
The Biggest Danger of Super PACs, CNN Politics, Jan. 9, 2012
This Case is a Trojan Horse, New York Times "Room for Debate" blog, Jan. 6, 2012 (forum on Bluman v. FEC)
Holder's Voting Rights Gamble: The Supreme Court's Voter ID Showdown, Slate, Dec. 30, 2011
Will Foreigners Decide the 2012 Election? The Extreme Unintended Consequences of Citizens United, The New Republic (online), Dec. 6, 2011
Disenfranchise No More, New York Times, Nov. 17, 2011
A Democracy Deficit at Americans Elect?, Politico, Nov. 9, 2011
Super-Soft Money: How Justice Kennedy paved the way for ‘SuperPACS’ and the return of soft money, Slate, Oct. 25, 2012
The Arizona Campaign Finance Law: The Surprisingly Good News in the Supreme Court’s New Decision, The New Republic (online), June 27, 2011
New York City as a Model?, New York Times Room for Debate, June 27, 2011
A Cover-Up, Not a Crime. Why the Case Against John Edwards May Be Hard to Prove, Slate, Jun. 3, 2011
Wisconsin Court Election Courts Disaster, Politico, Apr. 11, 2011
Rich Candidate Expected to Win Again, Slate, Mar. 25, 2011
Health Care and the Voting Rights Act, Politico, Feb. 4, 2011
The FEC is as Good as Dead, Slate, Jan. 25, 2011
Let Rahm Run!, Slate, Jan. 24, 2011
Lobbypalooza,The American Interest, Jan-Feb. 2011(with Ellen P. Aprill)
Election Hangover: The Real Legacy of Bush v. Gore, Slate, Dec. 3, 2010
Alaska's Big Spelling Test: How strong is Joe Miller's argument against the Leeza Markovsky vote?, Slate, Nov. 11, 2010
Kirk Offers Hope vs. Secret Donors, Politico, November 5, 2010
Evil Men in Black Robes: Slate's Judicial Election Campaign Ad Spooktackular!, Slate, October 26, 2010 (with Dahlia Lithwick)
Show Me the Donors: What's the point of disclosing campaign donations? Let's review, Slate, October 14, 2010
Un-American Influence: Could Foreign Spending on Elections Really Be Legal?, Slate, October 11, 2010
Toppled Castle: The real loser in the Tea Party wins is election reform, Slate, Sept. 16, 2010
Citizens United: What the Court Did--and Why, American Interest, July/August 2010
The Big Ban Theory: Does Elena Kagan Want to Ban Books? No, and She Might Even Be a Free Speech Zealot", Slate, May 24, 2010
Crush Democracy But Save the Kittens: Justice Alito's Double Standard for the First Amendment, Slate, Apr. 30, 2010
Some Skepticism About the "Separable Preferences" Approach to the Single Subject Rule: A Comment on Cooter & Gilbert, Columbia Law Review Sidebar, Apr. 19, 2010
Scalia's Retirement Party: Looking ahead to a conservative vacancy can help the Democrats at the polls, Slate, Apr. 12, 2010
Hushed Money: Could Karl Rove's New 527 Avoid Campaign-Finance Disclosure Requirements?, Slate, Apr. 6, 2010
Money Grubbers: The Supreme Court Kills Campaign Finance Reform, Slate, Jan. 21, 2010
Bad News for Judicial Elections, N.Y. Times "Room for Debate" Blog, Jan., 21, 2010
Read more opeds from 2006-2009
Forthcoming Publications, Recent Articles, and Working Papers
Fixing Washington, 126 Harvard Law Review (forthcoming 2012) (draf available)
What to Expect When You’re Electing: Federal Courts and the Political Thicket in 2012, Federal Lawyer, (forthcoming 2012)( draft available)
Chill Out: A Qualified Defense of Campaign Finance Disclosure Laws in the Internet Age, Journal of Law and Politics (forthcoming 2012) (draft available)
Lobbying, Rent Seeking, and the Constitution, 64 Stanford Law Review (forthcoming 2012) (draft available)
Anticipatory Overrulings, Invitations, Time Bombs, and Inadvertence: How Supreme Court Justices Move the Law, Emory Law Journal (forthcoming 2012) (draft available)
Teaching Bush v. Gore as History, St. Louis University Law Review (forthcoming 2012) (symposium on teaching election law) (draft available)
The Supreme Court’s Shrinking Election Law Docket: A Legacy of Bush v. Gore or Fear of the Roberts Court?, Election Law Journal (forthcoming 2011) (draft available)
Citizens United and the Orphaned Antidistortion Rationale, 27 Georgia State Law Review 989 (2011) (symposium on Citizens United)
The Nine Lives of Buckley v. Valeo, in First Amendment Stories, Richard Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, eds., Foundation 2011)
The Transformation of the Campaign Financing Regime for U.S. Presidential Elections, in The Funding of Political Parties (Keith Ewing, Jacob Rowbottom, and Joo-Cheong Tham, eds., Routledge 2011)
Judges as Political Regulators: Evidence and Options for Institutional Change, in Race, Reform and Regulation of the Electoral Process, (Gerken, Charles, and Kang eds., Cambridge 2011)
Citizens United and the Illusion of Coherence, 109 Michigan Law Review 581 (2011)
Aggressive Enforcement of the Single Subject Rule, 9 Election Law Journal 399 (2010) (co-authored with John G. Matsusaka)
The Benefits of the Democracy Canon and the Virtues of Simplicity: A Reply to Professor Elmendorf, 95 Cornell Law Review 1173 (2010)
Constitutional Avoidance and Anti-Avoidance on the Roberts Court, 2009 Supreme Court Review 181 (2010)
Election Administration Reform and the New Institutionalism, California Law Review 1075 (2010) (reviewing Gerken, The Democracy Index)
You Don't Have to Be a Structuralist to Hate the Supreme Court's Dignitary Harm Election Law Cases, 64 University of Miami Law Review 465 (2010)
The Democracy Canon, 62 Stanford Law Review 69 (2009)
Review Essay: Assessing California's Hybrid Democracy, 97 California Law Review 1501 (2009)
Bush v. Gore and the Lawlessness Principle: A Comment on Professor Amar, 61 Florida Law Review 979 (2009)
Introduction: Developments in Election Law, 42 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 565 (2009)
Book Review (reviewing Christopher P. Manfredi and Mark Rush, Judging Democracy (2008)), 124 Political Science Quarterly 213 (2009).
"Regulation of Campaign Finance," in Vikram Amar and Mark Tushnet, Global Perspectives on Constitutional Law (Oxford University Press (2009)
More Supply, More Demand: The Changing Nature of Campaign Financing for Presidential Primary Candidates (working paper, Sept. 2008)
When 'Legislature' May Mean More than''Legislature': Initiated Electoral College Reform and the Ghost of Bush v. Gore, 35 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 599 (2008) (draft available)
"Too Plain for Argument?" The Uncertain Congressional Power to Require Parties to Choose Presidential Nominees Through Direct and Equal Primaries, 102 Northwestern University Law Review 2009 (2008)
Political Equality, the Internet, and Campaign Finance Regulation, The Forum, Vol. 6, Issue 1, Art. 7 (2008)
Justice Souter: Campaign Finance Law's Emerging Egalitarian, 1 Albany Government Law Review 169 (2008)
Beyond Incoherence: The Roberts Court's Deregulatory Turn in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 92 Minnesota Law Review 1064 (2008) (draft available)
The Untimely Death of Bush v. Gore, 60 Stanford Law Review 1 (2007)
Articles 2004-2007
Category Archives: SOS White
“Gov. Mitch Daniels picks Connie Lawson as new Indiana Secretary of State”
IndyStar reports.
Breaking News: Indiana Supreme Court Unanimously Reverses in Charlie White Case, Says He’s Eligible for His Sec. of State’s Office
Former Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White was eligible to run for office, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled this morning.
The state’s highest court issued a unanimous decision this morning saying that even though White was registered to vote at his ex-wife’s house when he ran for office, he could still be a candidate.
In its decision, the Supreme Court, which has never overturned an election because of a challenge like this, said it was hesitant to go against the will of the voters.
UPDATE: You can read the opinion here.
Further UPDATE: The opinion states that “The appeal before us today does not decide any questions flowing from White‘s subsequent criminal convictions, but rather whether the Democratic Party‘s petition was a basis for barring his taking office after winning the election. We hold it was not.” The Court’s conclusion that White was eligible to take office means that the Democrat does not ascend to the Secretary of State’s position, and that Gov. Daniels will appoint a successor (which I assume will be a temporary successor in the event that White’s criminal convictions are overturned).
The reasoning of the Court is an interesting mix of a laches argument and the Democracy Canon: the Democratic Party knew about the residency problems, and should have sued sooner: their failure to do so would deprive the voters of their choice in the election:
Our conclusion is that the Code places a burden on political campaigns to investigate and vet their opposition before the pre-election time limitations expire, but that is better than the alternative: that a challenger might ignore a known (or knowable) disqualification challenge before the election, wait to see who won at the polls, and then seek to set aside the results of the democratic process. Such a result is inconsistent with free elections and respect for voters‘ expressed preferences. Here, the allegations of White‘s registration impropriety arose before the election and were made public by private citizens, the media, and by the Osili campaign and by the Democratic Party. It is likely that the average voter was aware that there were concerns about White‘s voter registration history at the time of the election, but we will not, on the basis of the present petition, judicially disenfranchise voters who went to the polls aware of what were at that moment only allegations. The fact that criminal charges were filed after the election and resulted in convictions (appeals still pending) does not alter that conclusion.
“Indiana Supreme Court Confronts Key Question in Disputed Elections: Now What?”
A ChapinBlog.
“Charlie White sentenced to one year on home detention”
IndyStar reports. Now it will be up to the state Supreme Court to decide whether the Republican governor gets to appoint a replacement, or whether the second place finisher, a Democrat, gets to take over the office. “White also told [Judge] Nation that comments he made in a Fox News interview the day after a jury convicted him were ‘not prudent.’”
“Recount Commission files brief in Supreme Court in eligibility case”
From an emailed press released from the Indiana Attorney General in the Charlie White case:
“The Attorney General’s Office represents the Recount Commission only and does not represent candidate White. In a separate criminal case, a jury on February 4 found White guilty of six felonies and White had to vacate his elected position as Secretary of State. In its appellant brief filed Tuesday in the Indiana Supreme Court, the AG’s Office argues the Recount Commission’s earlier decision upholding the will of the voters is the correct means of resolving the election contest. White’s subsequent convictions in the separate criminal case do not undermine the validity of the Recount Commission’s decision.”
Charlie White Oral Argument in Indiana Supreme Court Feb 29 at 9 AM
Here’s how the Court’s media advisory describes the issue:
Summary: The chairman of the Indiana Democratic Party (“IDP”) challenged the election of Charlie White as Indiana Secretary of State. The Indiana Recount Commission (“Commission”) heard evidence and rejected the challenge. On IDP’s petition for judicial review, the Marion Circuit Court set aside the Commission’s decision. The Court instructed the Commission to declare that White was not eligible to be a candidate for the office of Secretary of State, and to certify the candidate who received the second highest votes, Vop Osili, as Secretary of State. White and the Commission have appealed the Marion Circuit Court’s decision. The Supreme Court has granted motions to transfer and has assumed jurisdiction over this appeal.
“Indiana Supreme Court denies Democrats’ request to allow Vop Osili to fill secretary of state job”
IndyStar: “The Indiana Supreme Court agreed today to hear an appeal over the Democrats’ lawsuit regarding who should serve as Indiana’s secretary of state. The state’s highest court also denied Democrats’ request to put their candidate, Vop Osili, in office as soon as possible.”
“Political sparring continues in Charlie White case; Democrats want Indiana Court of Appeals to enforce a judge’s ruling on replacing the secretary of state.”
The latest from Indiana.
“AG’s Office seeks expedited review from Supreme Court in ballot case”
Interesting press release in the machinations over what to do about the SOS White guilty verdict on voter fraud charges. Dems want the intermediate court of appeal to declare the Democrat the new Secretary of State.
Meanwhile, a picture of Charlie White still greets visitors to the Indiana Secretary of State home page, even though there is an interim, temporary replacement.
Must Watch: Strong Words in FOX News Interview with SOS White
White’s comments. “Indiana is a land of men and not of law….It was a total miscarriage of justice and a perversion….[Prosecutor] was savage…barbaric.” White has negative things to say also about Governor Daniels, Evan Bayh and others. Must-watch.
“I was in love….Indiana election law trumps me being able to raise my children, and step-children the way we want to. I think it’s a travesty.”
White, who did not take the stand in the trial, said he is going to appeal.
Big Question after Charlie White Trial: Does Republican Gov. Get to Appoint or Do Dems Get the Office?
IndyStar: “Charlie White, the elected officer, was convicted of six felony charges — including voter fraud — early this morning, which removed him from office. But he could be reinstated on a technicality. Meanwhile, Gov. Mitch Daniels appointed White’s chief deputy, Jerry Bonnet, as his interim replacement. Democrats, however, claim they’ve won the office because a Marion County judge ruled that White was improperly registered to vote and therefore ineligible to run for secretary of state. White is appealing the ruling, which has not yet been enforced. Democrats will ask the judge to act on the ruling this week so their candidate, Vop Osili, can take office, Democratic Party Chairman Dan Parker said. That move likely would set up another legal battle.”
AP: “But a spokesman for the state Republican party said the civil lawsuit filed by Democrats and the criminal charges handed down by a grand jury were separate. Pete Seat said Democrats were unfairly trying to change the outcome of the election. ‘The Democrats, this is what they do,’ he said. ‘They lose elections and then they try to litigate victory.’”
More on the statutes from the Indiana Law Blog.
“Jury finds Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White guilty on 6 of 7 felony charges”
IndyStar: “Shortly after White’s verdict was read, Gov. Mitch Daniels announced in a news release shortly before 3 a.m. that he has appointed Jerry Bonnet, White’s chief deputy, as interim secretary of state.’I have chosen not to make a permanent appointment today out of respect for the judge’s authority to lessen the verdict to a misdemeanor and reinstate the elected office holder,’ the Republican governor said in the news release. ‘If the felony convictions are not altered, I anticipate making a permanent appointment quickly.’”
Much more coverage, and links, at the indispensable Indiana Law Blog.
Jury Deliberating after Dinner in Charlie White Case
See here. Maybe they don’t want to have to come back first thing Monday morning after the Super Bowl?
Jury May Reach Verdict Today in Charlie White Voter Fraud Case
“Charlie White won’t offer defense at vote fraud trial”
Go to trial but offer no defense? Interesting strategy. Counting on jury nullification? Not putting White on the stand?
UPDATE: AP quotes law professor questioning the wisdom of this strategy.
“Charlie White’s freedom, political future on the line”
Indiana Secretary of State goes on trial on voter fraud charges Monday.
“AG’s Office files Recount Commission appeal directly to Supreme Court”
The Indiana AG has issued this press release in the SOS White matter.
Judge Who Ruled Charlie White Must Be Ousted as Indiana SOS Stays Own Ruling
See here.
What Else is Potentially at Stake in the Charlie White Matter
To close, let me reclarify what Rosenberg’s ruling and a subsequent agreement from the Indiana Supreme Court could have in store for our state. Democrats could get the top ballot line for every single race in the state (no matter how down in the weeds) for the next three years. Democrats could get inspectors in all precincts, meaning that we control every precinct board in the state. Furthermore, the Indiana Election Commission and all precinct boards would consist of Democrats and Libertarians. With Osili as Secretary of State, we could gain a majority control over the Indiana Recount Commission. The Republican Party could lose major party status in the state, while the Libertarian Party could take their place as a major party. The Libertarian Party could then gain access to primaries, whereas the Republican Party would lose their access to primaries. It would force Republicans into conventions to nominate their candidates, and that would certainly favor state Treasurer Richard Mourdock in his primary challenge against sitting US Senator Richard Lugar. Because the GOP would lose their line on the ballot for the next three years, it would mean that the GOP would have to petition each time they want to get a candidate on the ballot (ballot line access requires signatures equal to 2% of the number of voters in the Secretary of State race; with Charlie White’s votes invalidated in the total, this equates to 14,659 signatures per candidate). With this lowered number of necessary signatures, a wide array of upstart Independent and third-party candidacies could theoretically sprout up. It could have a massive, massive effect on the crucial sets of elections we’ve got next year: Governor/Lt. Governor, US Senate, Attorney General, Superintendent of Public Instruction, and three competitive US House races. It’s worth noting that Republicans, the people that could be demolished by this ruling, hold all of those offices aside from Joe Donnelly’s US House seat.
I wonder if these implications will (1) affect how the State Supreme Court decides this case; and (2) motivate the Indiana legislature to change these laws.
UPDATE: Richard Winger says the law already has been changed.
“AG to assert legal authority in bringing Recount Commission appeal”
Press release: “Concluding that he need not wait for the Indiana Recount Commission to reconvene first, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller announced today that he will file an appeal on behalf of the Recount Commission. On Thursday, a Marion County court reversed the commission’s unanimous decision of last June on candidate Charlie White’s ballot eligibility and found White ineligible for the 2010 ballot. Zoeller, who represents the Recount Commission and other state administrative boards, will seek appellate review of the Marion County court’s ruling in a higher court.”
Breaking (and Major) News: Indiana Secretary of State White Removed from Office by Trial Court
The ruling is here. If there is no (successful) appeal, the second place finisher, Democrat Vop Osili, becomes Indiana’s Secretary of State.
UPDATE: Emergency relief sought:
The commission is seeking an emergency stay of the ruling, said A.J. Feeney-Ruiz, a spokesman for the secretary of state’s office, of which the commission is a part.
The panel will seek to do so through Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller’s office, he said.
Zoeller’s office said it has not yet discussed the matter with the Indiana Recount Commission.
“We’ve not met with them yet. I’m sure we’ll be meeting with them soon to see how they want to proceed. We do not represent Charlie White the candidate,” said Bryan Corbin, a spokesman for the attorney general’s office.
If that request for a stay is granted, it would mean that White will remain in office as the legal case plays out.
“Judge refuses to dismiss charges against White”
AP: “A judge on Monday denied Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White’s bid to avoid a trial on voter fraud and other criminal charges that could lead to his removal from office.”
“White Skips Eligibility Hearing Judge To Rule Within Month On Secretary Of State’s Case”
News from Indiana. “‘As an attorney, I would not have the courage or the chutzpah not to show up in a court proceeding that I was on record as representing a party,’ said William Groth, an attorney representing the Democratic Party.”
Pot Calling Kettle Black Dept.
Indiana SOS Charlie White, himself being prosecuted for voter fraud for voting somewhere other than his residence, files criminal complaint against Evan Bayh and his wife. Political motivations?
Bopp Resigns as SOS White’s Lawyer
“White’s trial delayed after Brizzi takes over defense”
The latest on SOS White.
“Secretary of state’s voter fraud case spurs calls for changes in Indiana’s election laws”
AP reports.
Read the Unanimous (Bipartisan) 32-Page Decision of the Indiana Recount Commission in the Charlie White Incident
Here [corrected link].
“Charlie White wins ruling, to retain office”
The Journal Gazette reports: “The Indiana Recount Commission ruled 3-0 Tuesday that Secretary of State Charlie White will keep his statewide office despite confusion over his voting address last year….Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler said White was an eligible candidate and was properly registered at his ex-wife’s home because he intended to live there with his son until his marriage in late May 2010.”
“Whether White can serve as secretary of state to be decided Tuesday”
See here.
“Democracts question residency of Indiana elections chief Charlie White”
The latest from Indiana.
Quote of the Day
“I cannot believe I’m fighting for my life, my family, over something like this. It’s tragic”
–Indiana SOS Charlie White, in a must-read interview with AP.
“Judge denies White’s request for immunity”
The latest from Indiana.