Source: https://www.hsdl.org/?search&exact=Whitaker%2C+L.+Paige&searchfield=creator&collection=limited&submitted=Search&advanced=1&release=0
Timestamp: 2020-07-08 09:16:45
Document Index: 455516274

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 431', '§ 431', '§ 431', '§ 431', '§ 431', '§30116', '§441']

Searching for terms: EXACT: "Whitaker, L. Paige" in: author
Supreme Court to Hear Voter Roll Case: What Are the Implications? [January 9, 2018]
"In what has been called a 'potentially major case on voting rights,' on January 10, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court is to hear oral argument in 'Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute'. Husted involves the question of whether an Ohio process for removing or 'purging' names from its official voter registration lists violates the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). Specifically, the 'Supplemental Process' for voter roll maintenance at issue in 'Husted' involves the Ohio secretary of state's office's removal of a registered voter's name from the state voter rolls if the individual--after a two-year period of voter inactivity--does not vote for four more years (including two general federal elections), and does not either (1) respond to a mailed confirmation notice or (2) reregister to vote. (Not at issue in 'Husted', Ohio also has a primary process for voter roll maintenance that utilizes the postal service's change-of-address system.) At the same time, the NVRA prohibits states from removing an individual's name from its voter rolls for federal elections 'by reason of the person's failure to vote,' while directing them to 'conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of' death or relocation."
Statement of L. Paige Whitaker, Legislative Attorney, Before Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Justice, U.S. House of Representatives, Hearing on 'History and Enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965' [March 12, 2019]
This testimony is from the March 12, 2019 hearing, 'History and Enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,' before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Justice. From the Document: "Chairman Cohen, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is L. Paige Whitaker and I am a Legislative Attorney with the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Thank you for inviting me to testify regarding the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). As requested, my testimony will briefly address the history of the VRA and provide an overview of Sections 2 and 3(c) of the law. My testimony will not address pending legislation, but CRS would be pleased to provide such analysis in the future. Pursuant to congressional guidelines, CRS is available to serve all Members of Congress, and CRS testimony is provided on an objective, non-partisan basis."
Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview [February 24, 2014]
"The Constitution requires a count of the U.S. population every 10 years. Based on the census, the number of seats in the House of Representatives is reapportioned among the states. Thus, at least every 10 years, in response to changes in the number of Representatives apportioned to it or to shifts in its population, each state is required to draw new boundaries for its congressional districts. Although each state has its own process for redistricting, congressional districts must conform to a number of constitutional and federal statutory standards, including the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965. The VRA was enacted under Congress's authority to enforce the 15th Amendment, which provides that the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of race, color, or previous servitude. Section 2 of the VRA prohibits the use of any voting qualification or practice--including the drawing of congressional redistricting plans--that results in the denial or abridgement of the right to vote based on race, color, or membership in a language minority. The statute further provides that a violation is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that political processes are not equally open to members of a racial or language minority group in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate and to elect representatives of choice. In decisions including 'Thornburg v. Gingles' and 'Bartlett v. Strickland', the Supreme Court further interpreted the requirements of Section 2."
Campaign Finance: Constitutional and Legal Issues of Soft Money [October 30, 2003]
"Prior to enactment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), P.L. [Public Law] 107-155, the term 'soft money' generally referred to unregulated funds, perceived as resulting from loopholes in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), 2 U.S.C. §§ 431 'et seq'. Generally, the intent of BCRA, (effective Nov. 6, 2002), which amends FECA, is to restrict the raising and spending of soft money. This Issue Brief discusses constitutional and legal issues surrounding two major types of soft money that BCRA regulates: political party soft money and soft money used for issue advocacy communications. Corporate and labor union soft money, which FECA exempts from regulation and is not addressed by BCRA, is also discussed. Prior to BCRA, political party soft money was funds raised by the national parties from sources and in amounts that FECA otherwise prohibited. Such funds were used in part for overhead expenses and issue ads, and then largely transferred to state and local parties, in accordance with the applicable state law, for grassroots and party building activity. As a result of BCRA, FECA now generally prohibits national parties from raising or spending soft money, 'i.e.' funds raised outside the restrictions of FECA. In 'McConnell v. FEC', (No. 02-1672), the U.S. Supreme Court will be considering the constitutionality of the BCRA restrictions on party soft money."
Campaign Finance: Constitutional and Legal Issues of Soft Money [January 25, 2002]
"A major issue in the campaign finance reform debate, generally unregulated soft money is perceived as resulting from a loophole in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Generally, soft money is considered to be funds that are raised and spent according to applicable state laws, which FECA prohibits from being spent directly on federal elections, but that may have an indirect influence on federal elections. This Issue Brief discusses three major types of soft money: political party soft money, corporate and labor union soft money, and soft money used for issue advocacy communications. Political party soft money is those funds raised by the national parties from sources and in amounts that FECA otherwise prohibits. In accordance with the applicable state law, it is then largely transferred to state and local political parties for grassroots and party-building activities, overhead expenses, and issue ads. Much of the recent campaign finance legislation would subject national party contributions, expenditures, or transfers, for activities that might influence a federal election, to the limitations, prohibitions, and source restrictions in FECA. Although the courts have not had occasion to address this issue specifically, it appears arguable that such restrictions on political party soft money could pass constitutional muster."
Campaign Finance: Constitutional and Legal Issues of Soft Money [March 14, 2002]
"Soft money is a major issue in the campaign finance reform debate because such funds are generally unregulated and perceived as resulting from a loophole in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). More specifically, soft money is considered to be funds that are raised and spent according to applicable state laws, which FECA prohibits from being spent directly on federal elections, but that may have an indirect influence on federal elections. This Issue Brief discusses three major types of soft money: political party soft money, corporate and labor union soft money, and soft money used for issue advocacy communications. Political party soft money is those funds raised by the national parties from sources and in amounts that FECA otherwise prohibits. In accordance with the applicable state law, it is then largely transferred to state and local political parties for grassroots and party-building activities, overhead expenses, and issue ads. Much of the recent campaign finance legislation would subject national party contributions, expenditures, or transfers, for activities that might influence a federal election, to the limitations, prohibitions, and source restrictions in FECA. Although the courts have not had occasion to address this issue specifically, it appears arguable that such restrictions on political party soft money could pass constitutional muster."
Campaign Finance: Constitutional and Legal Issues of Soft Money [August 29, 2003]
"Prior to enactment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), P.L. 107-155, the term 'soft money' generally referred to unregulated funds, perceived as resulting from loopholes in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), 2 U.S.C. §§ 431 'et seq'. Generally, the intent of BCRA, (effective Nov. 6, 2002), which amends FECA, is to restrict the raising and spending of soft money. This Issue Brief discusses constitutional and legal issues surrounding two major types of soft money that BCRA regulates: political party soft money and soft money used for issue advocacy communications. Corporate and labor union soft money, which FECA exempts from regulation and is not addressed by BCRA, is also discussed. Prior to BCRA, political party soft money was funds raised by the national parties from sources and in amounts that FECA otherwise prohibited. Such funds were used in part for overhead expenses and issue ads, and then largely transferred to state and local parties, in accordance with the applicable state law, for grassroots and party building activity. As a result of BCRA, FECA now generally prohibits national parties from raising or spending soft money, 'i.e.' funds raised outside the restrictions of FECA. In 'McConnell v. FEC', (No. 02-1672), the U.S. Supreme Court will be considering the constitutionality of the BCRA restrictions on party soft money."
Campaign Finance: Constitutional and Legal Issues of Soft Money [July 21, 2004]
"Prior to enactment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), P.L. [Public Law] 107-155, the term 'soft money' generally referred to unregulated funds, perceived as resulting from loopholes in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), 2 U.S.C. §§ 431 'et seq.' The general intent of BCRA, (effective November 6, 2002), which amends FECA, is to restrict the raising and spending of soft money. This Issue Brief discusses constitutional and legal issues surrounding two major types of soft money that BCRA regulates: political party soft money and soft money used for issue advocacy communications. Corporate and labor union soft money, which FECA exempts from regulation and is not addressed by BCRA, is also discussed."
Campaign Finance: Constitutional and Legal Issues of Soft Money [March 31, 2004]
"Prior to enactment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), P.L. [Public Law] 107-155, the term 'soft money' generally referred to unregulated funds, perceived as resulting from loopholes in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), 2 U.S.C. §§ 431 'et seq.' Generally, the intent of BCRA, (effective Nov. 6, 2002), which amends FECA, is to restrict the raising and spending of soft money. This Issue Brief discusses constitutional and legal issues surrounding two major types of soft money that BCRA regulates: political party soft money and soft money used for issue advocacy communications. Corporate and labor union soft money, which FECA exempts from regulation and is not addressed by BCRA, is also discussed."
Campaign Finance: Constitutional and Legal Issues of Soft Money [September 3, 2004]
Campaign Finance: Constitutional and Legal Issues of Soft Money [November 3, 2004]
Campaign Finance: Constitutional and Legal Issues of Soft Money [February 4, 2004]
Campaign Finance: Constitutional and Legal Issues of Soft Money [January 22, 2004]
Electoral College: An Overview and Analysis of Reform Proposals [Updated November 5, 2004]
"American voters elect the President and Vice President of the United States indirectly, through an arrangement known as the electoral college system. The electoral college system comprises a complex mosaic of constitutional provisions, state and federal laws, and political party rules and practices. Although the electoral college system has delivered uncontested results in 46 out of 50 presidential elections since it assumed its present constitutional form in 1804, it has been the subject of persistent criticism and frequent proposals for reform. Reform advocates cite several problems with the current system, including a close or multi-candidate election can result in no electoral college majority, leading to a contingent election in Congress; the current system can result in the election of a President and Vice President who received a majority of electoral votes, but fewer popular votes, than their opponents; the formula for assignment of electoral votes is claimed to provide an unfair advantage for less populous states and does not account for population changes between censuses; and the winner-take-all system used by most states does not recognize the proportional strength of the losing major party, minor party, and independent candidates. On the other hand, defenders assert that the electoral college system is an integral and vital component of federalism, that it has a 92% record of non-controversial results, and that it promotes an ideologically and geographically broad two-party system. They maintain that repair of the electoral college system, rather than abolition, would eliminate any perceived defects while retaining its overall strengths."
Whitaker, L. Paige; Neale, Thomas H.
Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview [January 31, 2013]
"The Constitution requires a count of the U.S. population every 10 years. Based on the census, the number of seats in the House of Representatives is reapportioned among the states. Thus, at least every 10 years, in response to changes in the number of Representatives apportioned to it or to shifts in its population, each state is required to draw new boundaries for its congressional districts. Although each state has its own process for redistricting, congressional districts must conform to a number of constitutional and federal statutory standards, including the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965, as amended. The VRA was enacted under Congress's authority to enforce the 15th Amendment, which provides that the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of race, color, or previous servitude. In particular, Section 2 of the VRA prohibits the use of any voting qualification or practice--including the drawing of congressional redistricting plans--that results in the denial or abridgement of the right to vote based on race, color, or membership in a language minority. The statute further provides that a violation is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that political processes are not equally open to members of a racial or language minority group in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate and to elect representatives of choice."
Campaign Finance: Constitutional and Legal Issues of Soft Money [Updated September 28, 2001]
"Soft money is a major issue in the campaign finance reform debate because these generally unregulated funds are perceived as resulting from a loophole in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Generally, soft money is funds that are raised and spent according to applicable state laws, which FECA prohibits from being spent directly on federal elections, but that may have an indirect influence on federal elections. This Issue Brief discusses three major types of soft money: political party soft money, corporate and labor union soft money, and soft money used for issue advocacy communications."
Campaign Finance: Constitutional and Legal Issues of Soft Money [Updated January 10, 2005]
"Prior to enactment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), P.L. 107-155, the term 'soft money' generally referred to unregulated funds, perceived as resulting from loopholes in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), 2 U.S.C. §§ 431 et seq. The general intent of BCRA, (effective November 6, 2002), which amends FECA, is to restrict the raising and spending of soft money. This Issue Brief discusses constitutional and legal issues surrounding two major types of soft money that BCRA regulates: political party soft money and soft money used for issue advocacy communications. Corporate and labor union soft money, which FECA exempts from regulation and is not addressed by BCRA, is also discussed."
Campaign Finance Reform: Regulating Political Communications on the Internet [September 20, 2005]
"The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) amended the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) to include a new term, 'federal election activity,' in order to expand the scope of federal campaign finance regulation. The definition of 'federal election activity' includes a 'public communication,' i.e., a broadcast, cable, satellite, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing, or telephone bank communication made to the general public, 'or any other form of general public political advertising.' In October 2002, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) promulgated regulations exempting from the definition of 'public communication' those communications that are made over the Internet. In response to the FEC's final rules, the two primary House sponsors of BCRA filed suit in U.S. district court against the FEC seeking to invalidate the regulations as opening a new avenue for circumvention of federal campaign finance law. In September 2004, in 'Shays v. FEC', the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia overturned some of the FEC's new regulations. In response to the district court's decision, in April 2005, the FEC published proposed new rules in order to conform to the Shays ruling. The proposed regulations reflect an attempt by the FEC to leave web logs, or 'blogs,' created and wholly maintained by individuals, free of regulations under FECA, while extending limited regulation only to uses of the Internet involving substantial monetary transactions."
Whitaker, L. Paige; Cantor, Joseph E.
Supreme Court October Term 2018: A Review of Selected Major Rulings [August 23, 2019]
From the Document: "The Supreme Court term that began on October 1, 2018, was a term of transition, with the Court issuing a number of rulings that, at times, suggested but did not fully adopt broader transformations in its jurisprudence. The term followed the retirement of Justice Kennedy, who was a critical vote on the Court for much of his 30-year tenure and who had been widely viewed as the Court's median or 'swing' Justice. As a result, the question looming over the October 2018 Term was how the replacement of Justice Kennedy with Justice Kavanaugh would alter the Court's jurisprudence going forward. Notwithstanding the alteration in the Court's makeup, observers have generally agreed that the October 2018 Term largely did not produce broad changes to the Court's jurisprudence. Although a number of cases presented the Court with the opportunity to rethink various areas of law, the Court largely declined those invitations. In other cases, a majority of the Justices did not resolve potentially far-reaching questions, resulting in the Court either issuing more narrow rulings or simply not issuing an opinion in a given case. Nonetheless, much of the low-key nature of the October 2018 Term was a product of the Court's decisions to not hear certain matters. And for a number of closely watched cases that it did agree to hear, the Court opted to schedule arguments for the next term."
Nolan, Andrew; Brannon, Valerie C.; Hayes, Benjamin . . .
Congressional Redistricting: Legal and Constitutional Issues [September 22, 2015]
"Congressional redistricting is the drawing of district boundaries from which the people choose their representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives. The legal framework for congressional redistricting resides at the intersection of the Constitution's limits and powers, requirements prescribed under federal law, and the various processes imposed by the states. Prior to the 1960s, court challenges to redistricting plans were considered non-justiciable political questions that were most appropriately addressed by the political branches of government, not the judiciary. In 1962, in the landmark ruling of Baker v. Carr, the Supreme Court pivoted and held that a constitutional challenge to a redistricting plan was not a political question and was justiciable. Since then, a series of constitutional and legal challenges have significantly shaped how congressional districts are drawn."
Survey of Federal Whistleblower and Anti-Retaliation Laws [April 22, 2013]
"This report provides an overview of federal whistleblower and anti-retaliation laws. In general, these laws protect employees who report misconduct by their employers or who engage in various protected activities, such as participating in an investigation or filing a complaint. In recent years, Congress has expanded employee protections for a variety of private-sector workers. Eleven of the forty laws reviewed in this report were enacted after 1999. Among these laws are the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The report focuses on key aspects of the federal whistleblower and anti-retaliation laws. For each law, the report summarizes the activities that are protected, how the law's protections are enforced, whether the law provides a private right of action, the remedies prescribed by the law, and the year the law's whistleblower or anti-retaliation provisions were adopted and amended. With regard to amendment dates, the report identifies only dates associated with substantive amendments. For enactments after 2001, the report provides information on congressional sponsorship and votes."
Shimabukuro, Jon O.; Whitaker, L. Paige; Roberts, Emily E.
Campaign Finance Law and the Constitutionality of the 'Millionaire's Amendment': An Analysis of 'Davis v. Federal Election Commission' [July 17, 2008]
"In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), also known as the McCain-Feingold law, establishing increased contribution limits for congressional candidates whose opponents significantly self-finance their campaigns. This provision is frequently referred to as the 'Millionaire's Amendment.' The Court found that the burden imposed on expenditures of personal funds is not justified by the compelling governmental interest of lessening corruption or the appearance of corruption and, therefore, held that the law is unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment."
Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal Overview [April 2, 2013]
"The Constitution requires a count of the U.S. population every 10 years. Based on the census, the number of seats in the House of Representatives is reapportioned among the states. Thus, at least every 10 years, in response to changes in the number of Representatives apportioned to it or to shifts in its population, each state is required to draw new boundaries for its congressional districts. Although each state has its own process for redistricting, congressional districts must conform to a number of constitutional and federal statutory standards, including the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965. The VRA was enacted under Congress's authority to enforce the 15th Amendment, which provides that the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of race, color, or previous servitude. In a series of cases and evolving jurisprudence, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted how the VRA applies in the context of congressional redistricting. These decisions inform how congressional district boundaries are drawn, and whether legal challenges to such redistricting plans will be successful. This report provides a legal overview of two key provisions of the VRA affecting congressional redistricting--Sections 2 and 5--and selected accompanying Supreme Court case law. It examines a pending Supreme Court case, 'Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder', challenging the constitutionality of Section 5. It also provides a summary of selected legislation in the 112th and 113th Congresses that would establish additional requirements and standards for congressional redistricting."
Supreme Court Considering Second Partisan Gerrymandering Case This Term [April 2, 2018]
"For a second time during the current term, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering a claim of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering. On March 28, 2018, the Court heard oral argument in Benisek v. Lamone, involving a challenge to a Maryland congressional district. In October 2017, the Court heard oral argument in Gill v. Whitford, involving a similar challenge to a Wisconsin state legislative redistricting plan. While the Court has invalidated redistricting maps because of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, it has not overturned a map because of partisan gerrymandering. As defined by the Court, partisan gerrymandering is 'the drawing of legislative district lines to subordinate adherents of one political party and entrench a rival party in power.' A decision in these cases is expected by June 2018."
Commerce Department Announces Citizenship Question on 2020 Census and Lawsuits Filed [April 6, 2018]
"On March 26, 2018, the Commerce Department, which houses the U.S. Census Bureau, announced that the 2020 decennial census questionnaire will include a citizenship question. Thereafter, the State of California and a coalition of states and cities led by the State of New York filed lawsuits to stop Commerce from including the question, generally arguing that including a citizenship question would suppress the census response rate and result in undercounts that would violate the U.S. Constitution's mandate to count every resident. Commerce maintains, among other things, that inclusion of the citizenship question in the census questionnaire to the entire U.S. population will produce census block level data on 'citizenship voting age population' (CVAP) that is more accurate and complete than current data, thereby outweighing concerns of a lower response rate, and that such data will assist the Department of Justice in enforcing the Voting Rights Act. This sidebar provides an overview of the Commerce Department's announcement; relevant constitutional and statutory provisions; how census data is used in redistricting and ensuring compliance with the Voting Rights Act; and pending legal challenges."
Partisan Gerrymandering: Supreme Court Provides Guidance on Standing and Maintains Legal Status Quo [July 2, 2018]
"In a redistricting case that some predicted could have resulted in a 'blockbuster' ruling, Gill v. Whitford, the Supreme Court issued a more limited, yet still consequential decision. On June 18, 2018 the Supreme Court ruled that in order to establish standing to sue upon a claim of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering on the basis of vote dilution, challengers must allege injuries to their interests as voters in individual districts. (Vote dilution arises when district boundaries devalue one citizen's vote as compared to others and is accomplished by 'packing' certain voters into a few districts, so that they win elections by large margins, and 'cracking' certain voters among several districts, so that they fail to achieve a voting majority.) Because the challengers in Gill alleged statewide harm to voters of a particular political party--that is, to voters throughout the state who support the Democratic Party--without establishing proof of injury to specific voters within a particular district, the Supreme Court ruled that they failed to establish standing, and in an atypical move, remanded the case to the district court for reargument. On the same day the Court issued Gill, the Court also decided Benisek v. Lamone, holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a preliminary injunction to challengers claiming that a Maryland congressional district was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander."
Coordinated Party Expenditures in Federal Elections: An Overview [August 15, 2016]
"A provision of federal campaign finance law, codified at 52 U.S.C. §30116(d) (formerly 2 U.S.C. §441a(d)), allows political party committees to make expenditures on behalf of their general election candidates for federal office and specifies limits on such spending. These 'coordinated party expenditures' are important not only because they provide financial support to campaigns, but also because parties and campaigns may explicitly discuss how the money is spent. Although they have long been the major source of direct party financial support for campaigns, coordinated expenditures have recently been overshadowed by independent expenditures."
State Voter Identification Requirements: Analysis, Legal Issues, and Policy Considerations [July 5, 2016]
"More than half the states require a voter to provide a specified identification document (ID) to cast a ballot at the polling place, and a few extend the requirement to absentee or mail-in voting. Many states require an ID with a photograph of the voter (photo ID). Some require a document that does not need to include such a photograph (nonphoto ID). Others do not require any type of ID to vote, but a voter may be asked to provide certain information to verify what is contained in the registration record or otherwise confirm his or her identity, such as stating an address or birth date or providing a signature. Voter identification requirements across the states vary in flexibility, in the types of documents allowed, in exceptions made to the requirements, and in the recourse available to a voter who cannot comply with the ID requirement at the polls. Photo ID requirements in particular have been a major issue of policy debate in recent years, but for both photo and nonphoto ID, the range of IDs accepted and how strictly the state enforces the requirement have also been sources of controversy. Debates over such requirements are typically complex and can be contentious. This report provides an updated overview of state requirements for voters to present some form of ID before casting a ballot in a federal election. The report also discusses the origins of voter ID, relevant federal legislative action in the 114th Congress, and selected legal and policy issues related to state voter ID laws. The scope is limited to identification requirements for voting; the report does not address voter registration requirements."
Fischer, Eric A.; Garrett, R. Sam, 1977-; Whitaker, L. Paige