Scalia is Wrong: Voting Rights Act is Not a “Racial Preferment”
April 17, 2013
Justice Scalia recently doubled down on his earlier “racial entitlement” remarks. This time, he told a group of students that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is an “embedded” form of “racial preferment” because it does not protect whites. Click here for my new Huffington Post commentary, which explains why Scalia is wrong.
Discussing AZ Voter Registration on HuffPost Live
March 19, 2013
I discussed via streaming video the issues raised at yesterday’s Supreme Court oral argument with HuffPost Live’s Mike Sacks and Ryan Reilly, as well as Kentucky Law Professor Josh Douglas, and League of Women Voters President Elisabeth MacNamara. You can watch here (24:34).
Debating AZ Voter Registration on NPR
March 19, 2013
I debated the issues raised at yesterday’s Supreme Court oral argument with Hans von Spakovsky on Michel Martin’s NPR show “Tell Me More.” You can listen here (12:30).
Protecting Voting Rights is Not “Crazy”
March 19, 2013
I attended yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in the Arizona voter registration case. Click here for my new commentary—Protecting Voting Rights is not ”Crazy”–cross-posted at Huffington Post, ACS Blog, and Demos Policy Shop Blog. At oral argument, Justice Alito suggested the Justices would create a “crazy” double standard by requiring that Arizona election officials accept the federal registration form. I show why Alito’s concerns are unwarranted.
The Other Voting Rights Case
March 17, 2013
On Monday morning at 10 am, I’ll be at the U.S. Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in the second voting rights case this term—Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona. Click here to find my Huffington Post commentary on the case, which is cross-posted at Demos and ACS Blog. I argue that federal law mandates that Arizona must accept federal registration forms–even when those forms lack Arizona’s documentary proof of U.S. citizenship.
GW Debate on Shelby County Oral Argument
March 12, 2013
I moderated this spirited debate on key questions asked by U.S. Supreme Court Justices at Oral Argument in Shelby County v. Holder. Michael Carvin and Dr. Abigail Thernstrom argued for Shelby County, and Gerry Hebert and Dara Lindenbaum for Respondents. You can watch video or listen to iTunes audio by clicking here, and watch 39:45-44:24 for a 5-minute sample.
U.C. Berkeley Voting Rights Symposium
March 4, 2013
I will give the Keynote Address at the “Mapping the Ballot Box: Voting Rights & the Propensity for Electoral Success in a ‘Post-Racial’ America” Symposium.
Debating Voting Rights Act on NPR
March 1, 2013
I debated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act with Hans von Spakovsky on Michel Martin’s NPR show “Tell Me More.” Von Spakovsky agreed with Justice Scalia’s remark during oral argument that Section 5 was renewed due to a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” I disagreed, pointing out that Justice Scalia’s remark was a political assumption that was inappropriate in a court of law, and that someone could just as easily flip the comment around and claim opposition to the Voting Rights Act is motivated by an interest in perpetuating racial entitlement of whites. You can listen here.
The “Law” of Perpetuating Racial Entitlement
February 28, 2013
My commentary at Huffington Post. I attended oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court, and Justice Scalia said he thinks that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is motivated by a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” These and other comments by Justices confirm my belief that Congress–not the Court–is best positioned to determine the fate of the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance and coverage provisions.
Voting Rights Act Deserves More Judicial Deference than Indiana ID
February 22, 2013
My contribution to the ACSblog symposium on Shelby County v. Holder. This commentary gives five reasons why the case to uphold Section 5′s preclearance and coverage provisions is stronger than the case to uphold Indiana’s photo ID law.
Voting Discrimination Remains Concentrated in Covered States
February 14, 2013
My contribution to the SCOTUSblog symposium on Shelby County v. Holder. This commentary summarizes many of the strongest legal arguments and facts in favor of upholding Section 5′s preclearance and coverage provisions.
The next Voting Rights Act
January 30, 2013
My contribution to the Reuters symposium on the future of the Voting Rights Act.
NPR’s Tell Me More
December 3, 2012
Debated former FEC member Hans von Spakovsky on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act on Michel Martin’s “Tell Me More” show on NPR. Click here to listen.
GW Symposium on Political Law
November 16, 2012
I worked with the GW Political Law Studies Initiative and the George Washington University Law Review to organize this symposium (video here) immediately after the 2012 elections.
NPR’s Diane Rehm
September 11, 2012
Voting Laws and the 2012 Presidential Race with Diane, Bruce Fein, Rick Hasen, and John Fortier. Click here to listen.
Matching Political Contributions
2012
My academic piece published in the Minnesota Law Review. It expands on one of the proposals in The Participation Interest.
Abstract: Traditional public financing of campaigns is in trouble. Successful candidates have increasingly rejected public financing because it provides inadequate funding and limits candidate spending. November 2012 was the first general election in which presidential candidates from both major parties rejected public financing since the inception of the program. The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a decision that undermined traditional public financing systems. If existing programs are not revamped soon public financing may be off the public radar for decades, as budget deficits make antiquated public financing programs ripe targets for spending cuts. This Essay proposes a paradigm shift. Public financing should no longer aim to purge private money from politics, but should instead encourage as many citizens as possible to participate in financing politics. Specifically, federal, state, and local lawmakers should adopt a multiple match for political contributions that would dramatically expand participation. Giving six-to-one multiple matching public funds on the first $200 of a contribution, for example, would make a $200 contribution worth $1400 to a candidate. Studies show that multiple matching funds can increase citizen participation sevenfold, and can prompt candidates to collect the bulk of their money from smaller contributors.
The Participation Interest
2012
My academic article published in the Georgetown Law Journal.
Abstract: Lack of participation is a primary problem with money in politics. Relatively few people make political contributions — less than one-half of one percent of the population provides the bulk of the money that politicians collect from individual contributors. This Article introduces and details the state’s interest in expanding citizen participation in financing politics. Rather than focus solely on pushing an incomplete anticorruption framework to restrict special interest influence, reformers should also embrace a strategy of giving more people influence. Reformers should accept that money produces speech and that “special interests” in the form of grassroots organizations are a democratic good that can stimulate participation. Increased participation makes government more accountable and responsive, and citizens who give even small financial contributions are more likely to become vested and participate in nonfinancial ways. The Article also presents policies that allow federal, state, and local legislatures to advance the state’s interest in participation. Such policies include tax credits, donor matching funds, exemptions from disclosure for donors of $500 or less, and relaxed restrictions on political action committees (PACs) and parties funded by small donors.
Salt Lake City, Utah
May 2, 2012
“Power of the People!”
Keynote Speaker, Annual ACLU of Utah Bill of Rights Celebration.
Washington, DC
November 11, 2011
“Voter ID Panel”
Panelist with former FEC Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky, Wall Street Columnist John Fund, and Ohio State Professor Dan Tokaji, Annual Federalist Society Convention. Video here.
NPR’s Tell Me More
November 7, 2011
Debated former FEC member Hans von Spakovsky on Voter ID on Michel Martin’s “Tell Me More” show on NPR. Click here to listen.
Minneapolis, MN
October 20-21, 2011
Minnesota Law Review “Citizens United Symposium”
Joined Citizens United architect James Bopp as one of two substantive participants in the plenary session.
Roland Martin Show
October 7, 2011
Interview on The Roland Martin Show with Nicole Austin-Hillery of the Brennan Center on voter suppression (the Brennan Center has great reports on both voting and money in politics). Click here to watch.
Michael Eric Dyson Show
October 28, 2010
Interview on The Michael Eric Dyson Show. Election officials and former felons across the country often erroneously assume former felons can’t vote. This misinformation is a huge source of disenfranchisement–perhaps greater than the actual disenfranchisement in restrictive states like VA and KY that actually disenfranchise former felons for life, even after they have served all terms of their sentences. Click here to listen.
Washington, DC
December 6, 2010. 9 am.
“Campaign Finance in the Post-Citizens United World”
Opening Plenary Speaker, Council on Governmental Ethics Laws (COGEL) 2010 Annual Conference. Fairmont Hotel, Washington DC.
C-Span TV
October 18, 2010.
“How Will History Judge the Impact of Citizens United v. FEC.” Moderated panel, with Sidney Milkis, Michael Malbin, Nancy Rosenblum, Gerald Berk, Allison Hayward, Peter Overby, and Trevor Potter. U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, Washington DC. Click here to watch (Overton opening statement at 1:02).
Michael Eric Dyson Show
October 18, 2010
Interview on The Michael Eric Dyson Show, focusing on Tea Party efforts to prevent voter fraud, and concerns about access. Click here to listen.
Michael Eric Dyson Show
October 11, 2010
Interview on The Michael Eric Dyson Show, focusing on disenfranchisement of college students due to misinformation provided by local election officials. Click here to listen.
Michael Eric Dyson Show
October 6, 2010
Interview on The Michael Eric Dyson Show, focusing on disenfranchisement of poor people due to States’ failure to provide voter registration at public assistance offices in violation of federal law. Click here to listen.
Michael Eric Dyson Show
September 9, 2010
Interview on The Michael Eric Dyson Show, focusing on the effects of barriers to the ballot and corporate spending on midterm elections. Click here to listen.
