Video of R Street Institute Event with Two Ilyas—Myself and Ilya Shapiro Speaking about Our New Books

Free to Move—Final Cover

The R Street Institute has made available video of their recent online event featuring, not one but TWO Ilyas: Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, and yours truly. We spoke about our respective new books: Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration and Political Freedom, and Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America’s Highest Court.

As an extra bonus, this is a great opportunity for Volokh Conspiracy readers to learn how to tell the two Ilyas apart, thereby forestalling the growth of the pernicious phenomenon of #IlyaConfusion. To make extra sure,  I recommend reading my definitive guide to the subject, which covers all the major distinctions between us, including legal and political issues we differ on, our origins in the rival cities of St. Petersburg and Moscow, and the contrast between Shapiro’s notorious sports bigamy versus my exclusive loyalty to Boston teams. You can also watch this 2016 debate in which we crossed swords on the subject of presidential power over immigration.

I plan to post a review of Shapiro’s insightful book sometime in the near future.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3e96OXF
via IFTTT

President of Cal State Northridge Opines on the Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict

Dianne F. Harrison, the President of California State University-Northridge, posted the following item to the Cal State Northridge Facebook page earlier this month (referring to an earlier statement):

Support for Armenia and the Republic of Artsakh

To the Campus Community,

I am writing to expand on my message from last week relating to the conflict in Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) that was followed by a productive conversation with students, faculty, staff and administrators from the CSUN Armenian community. Despite the recent tenuous truce, I am deeply troubled by the unprovoked aggression against the Armenian people and the civilian population in Artsakh. This is a humanitarian crisis, and I call on the United States to join others from around the world in condemning Azerbaijan’s military violence, which is aided by Turkey and includes destroying civilian targets, and pushing for a permanent peace.

CSUN is home to the largest population of Armenian and Armenian-American students of any university outside of Armenia and noted for our Armenia Studies Program. This conflict hits close to home for many in our community. The terrible lessons of the 1915 Armenian Genocide demand that we never allow this horrific history to repeat itself through ethnic cleansing in this war.

If you would like to join us in making a statement for peace, I encourage you to support the Armenia Fund (https://ift.tt/36ljTLL). Also, CSUN students who need counseling during these troubling times may connect with University Counseling Services through their website at https://ift.tt/2HDhpyA.

Anytime our campus community faces conflict, we as Matadors come together as one. Thank you for showing sympathy and support for our Armenian brothers and sisters during these challenging times.

Sincerely,
Dianne F. Harrison, Ph.D.
President

This is pretty clearly not just her statement as a citizen or as a researcher. (“She holds a Ph.D. in social work from Washington University in St. Louis and a master’s of social work and a bachelor’s in American Studies, both from the University of Alabama. Her academic and research areas of expertise include HIV prevention among women and minority populations and higher education issues related to university leadership.”) She is making a statement as the President of a prominent local university, with over 30,000 students.

My question: Should universities take stands on such matters, however popular they may be with a large student group, whether they deal with Armenia vs. Azerbaijan, Israel vs. the Palestinians, China vs. Tibetan separatists, or whatever? Note that this isn’t just a call for protection of very broadly shared values (life, democracy, freedom of speech, and the like): It’s a judgment about which nation is at fault in the fighting, and which nation should have sovereignty over particular territory.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3oHxN1k
via IFTTT

Video of R Street Institute Event with Two Ilyas—Myself and Ilya Shapiro Speaking about Our New Books

Free to Move—Final Cover

The R Street Institute has made available video of their recent online event featuring, not one but TWO Ilyas: Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, and yours truly. We spoke about our respective new books: Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration and Political Freedom, and Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America’s Highest Court.

As an extra bonus, this is a great opportunity for Volokh Conspiracy readers to learn how to tell the two Ilyas apart, thereby forestalling the growth of the pernicious phenomenon of #IlyaConfusion. To make extra sure,  I recommend reading my definitive guide to the subject, which covers all the major distinctions between us, including legal and political issues we differ on, our origins in the rival cities of St. Petersburg and Moscow, and the contrast between Shapiro’s notorious sports bigamy versus my exclusive loyalty to Boston teams. You can also watch this 2016 debate in which we crossed swords on the subject of presidential power over immigration.

I plan to post a review of Shapiro’s insightful book sometime in the near future.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3e96OXF
via IFTTT

President of Cal State Northridge Opines on the Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict

Dianne F. Harrison, the President of California State University-Northridge, posted the following item to the Cal State Northridge Facebook page earlier this month (referring to an earlier statement):

Support for Armenia and the Republic of Artsakh

To the Campus Community,

I am writing to expand on my message from last week relating to the conflict in Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) that was followed by a productive conversation with students, faculty, staff and administrators from the CSUN Armenian community. Despite the recent tenuous truce, I am deeply troubled by the unprovoked aggression against the Armenian people and the civilian population in Artsakh. This is a humanitarian crisis, and I call on the United States to join others from around the world in condemning Azerbaijan’s military violence, which is aided by Turkey and includes destroying civilian targets, and pushing for a permanent peace.

CSUN is home to the largest population of Armenian and Armenian-American students of any university outside of Armenia and noted for our Armenia Studies Program. This conflict hits close to home for many in our community. The terrible lessons of the 1915 Armenian Genocide demand that we never allow this horrific history to repeat itself through ethnic cleansing in this war.

If you would like to join us in making a statement for peace, I encourage you to support the Armenia Fund (https://ift.tt/36ljTLL). Also, CSUN students who need counseling during these troubling times may connect with University Counseling Services through their website at https://ift.tt/2HDhpyA.

Anytime our campus community faces conflict, we as Matadors come together as one. Thank you for showing sympathy and support for our Armenian brothers and sisters during these challenging times.

Sincerely,
Dianne F. Harrison, Ph.D.
President

This is pretty clearly not just her statement as a citizen or as a researcher. (“She holds a Ph.D. in social work from Washington University in St. Louis and a master’s of social work and a bachelor’s in American Studies, both from the University of Alabama. Her academic and research areas of expertise include HIV prevention among women and minority populations and higher education issues related to university leadership.”) She is making a statement as the President of a prominent local university, with over 30,000 students.

My question: Should universities take stands on such matters, however popular they may be with a large student group, whether they deal with Armenia vs. Azerbaijan, Israel vs. the Palestinians, China vs. Tibetan separatists, or whatever? Note that this isn’t just a call for protection of very broadly shared values (life, democracy, freedom of speech, and the like): It’s a judgment about which nation is at fault in the fighting, and which nation should have sovereignty over particular territory.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3oHxN1k
via IFTTT

“In the sense of the law”

I was reading cases about statutory interpretation and the mischief (for my paper The Mischief Rule) and came across the greatest headnote ever:

When a person borrows a pistol for the purpose of joining in a chase for a bear, returning the pistol soon after the return from the chase, he is not guilty of going armed in the sense of the law.

Moorefield v. State, 73 Tenn. 348 (1880).

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2HJRHIb
via IFTTT

“In the sense of the law”

I was reading cases about statutory interpretation and the mischief (for my paper The Mischief Rule) and came across the greatest headnote ever:

When a person borrows a pistol for the purpose of joining in a chase for a bear, returning the pistol soon after the return from the chase, he is not guilty of going armed in the sense of the law.

Moorefield v. State, 73 Tenn. 348 (1880).

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2HJRHIb
via IFTTT

State Can’t Push November Election Back to February Based on Death of Third-Party Candidate

Federal law provides that federal Representatives must be elected “[t]he Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November,” though it lets states set “the time for holding elections in any State … for a Representative … to fill a vacancy, whether such vacancy is caused by a failure to elect at the time prescribed by law, or by the death, resignation, or incapacity of a person elected.”

Minnesota law provides that, “when a candidate of a ‘major political party’ dies after the seventy-ninth day before the general election,” the vote for that office at the general election should be ignored, and instead there should be a new election on the second Tuesday in February (here, Feb. 9, 2021). In the race for the Second Congressional District of Minnesota, candidate Adam Weeks died on Sept. 21; he “was the candidate of the Legal Marijuana Now Party, which is recognized as a ‘major political party’ under Minnesota law” because “the party’s candidate for state auditor received at least five percent of the statewide vote in 2018.”

Is the Minnesota February election scheme constitutional here? No, says last Friday’s Eighth Circuit decision in Craig v. Simon (written by Judge Steven Colloton and joined by Judges James Loken and Duane Benton):

It is an open question whether a State may refuse to certify results of an election for United States Representative based on a natural disaster, death of a candidate, or other event beyond the State’s control. Perhaps this is an area where additional federal legislation would be necessary to authorize postponement of a congressional election in certain extraordinary situations.

But assuming … we … must address whether Minnesota’s particular policy choice in [its statute] is sufficient to justify declaring a legitimate “failure to elect” under [federal law] that would allow the State to “fill a vacancy” in the office of Representative. [Federal law] establishes a uniform date for federal elections. There are strong federal policy reasons for this uniformity, including to ensure that some States who vote earlier cannot influence voters in other States, and to avoid a burden on citizens who would be forced to turn out on two different election days. If federal law permits a State to cancel an election for Representative based on events beyond the State’s control, then we believe the reasons for cancellation would have to be compelling or akin to “exigent circumstances[.]” …

Applying this demanding standard, we do not think … that [the Minnesota law], as applied to the current situation, may coexist with the federal election laws. If the death of a candidate ever would justify cancellation of an election and declaration of a “failure to elect” under § 8(a), then we think it likely that the candidate must represent a political party with a greater history of electoral strength than the Legal Marijuana Now Party in Minnesota. By analogy to the natural disaster hypothetical favored by Kistner, perhaps a major earthquake or hurricane in the congressional district on election day could justify a cancellation, but a snowstorm could not, even if experience showed that the blizzard was likely to depress turnout by five percent….

According to data available to us from the Minnesota Secretary of State, no candidate from the LMN Party has ever won federal or state office in Minnesota. In the 2016 presidential election, the party’s candidate won 0.38% of the vote. In 2018, the party’s candidates for United States Senator in two separate elections garnered 2.55% and 3.70% of the vote, respectively…. The party’s candidate for Representative in the Fourth District received 4.19% of the vote. As noted, the LMN candidate for state auditor received 5.28% of the statewide vote, thus barely crossing the five-percent threshold in a down-ballot statewide race and qualifying the party for “major political party” status under state law. …

Even if the death of a Republican or Democratic-Farmer-Labor candidate could qualify as an exigent circumstance that would allow the State to cancel an election and trigger a vacancy in office, we think it unlikely that the rationale would extend to the death of a third-party candidate from a party with the modest electoral strength exhibited to date by the Legal Marijuana Now Party in Minnesota. Voters who wish to show support for the agenda of the LMN Party may still cast a vote for the decedent. But it is unlikely that federal law allows Minnesota to cancel the election on account of candidate Weeks’s death and to select a new date in February 2021 to fill a vacancy caused by the cancellation….

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/37TmiOH
via IFTTT

State Can’t Push November Election Back to February Based on Death of Third-Party Candidate

Federal law provides that federal Representatives must be elected “[t]he Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November,” though it lets states set “the time for holding elections in any State … for a Representative … to fill a vacancy, whether such vacancy is caused by a failure to elect at the time prescribed by law, or by the death, resignation, or incapacity of a person elected.”

Minnesota law provides that, “when a candidate of a ‘major political party’ dies after the seventy-ninth day before the general election,” the vote for that office at the general election should be ignored, and instead there should be a new election on the second Tuesday in February (here, Feb. 9, 2021). In the race for the Second Congressional District of Minnesota, candidate Adam Weeks died on Sept. 21; he “was the candidate of the Legal Marijuana Now Party, which is recognized as a ‘major political party’ under Minnesota law” because “the party’s candidate for state auditor received at least five percent of the statewide vote in 2018.”

Is the Minnesota February election scheme constitutional here? No, says last Friday’s Eighth Circuit decision in Craig v. Simon (written by Judge Steven Colloton and joined by Judges James Loken and Duane Benton):

It is an open question whether a State may refuse to certify results of an election for United States Representative based on a natural disaster, death of a candidate, or other event beyond the State’s control. Perhaps this is an area where additional federal legislation would be necessary to authorize postponement of a congressional election in certain extraordinary situations.

But assuming … we … must address whether Minnesota’s particular policy choice in [its statute] is sufficient to justify declaring a legitimate “failure to elect” under [federal law] that would allow the State to “fill a vacancy” in the office of Representative. [Federal law] establishes a uniform date for federal elections. There are strong federal policy reasons for this uniformity, including to ensure that some States who vote earlier cannot influence voters in other States, and to avoid a burden on citizens who would be forced to turn out on two different election days. If federal law permits a State to cancel an election for Representative based on events beyond the State’s control, then we believe the reasons for cancellation would have to be compelling or akin to “exigent circumstances[.]” …

Applying this demanding standard, we do not think … that [the Minnesota law], as applied to the current situation, may coexist with the federal election laws. If the death of a candidate ever would justify cancellation of an election and declaration of a “failure to elect” under § 8(a), then we think it likely that the candidate must represent a political party with a greater history of electoral strength than the Legal Marijuana Now Party in Minnesota. By analogy to the natural disaster hypothetical favored by Kistner, perhaps a major earthquake or hurricane in the congressional district on election day could justify a cancellation, but a snowstorm could not, even if experience showed that the blizzard was likely to depress turnout by five percent….

According to data available to us from the Minnesota Secretary of State, no candidate from the LMN Party has ever won federal or state office in Minnesota. In the 2016 presidential election, the party’s candidate won 0.38% of the vote. In 2018, the party’s candidates for United States Senator in two separate elections garnered 2.55% and 3.70% of the vote, respectively…. The party’s candidate for Representative in the Fourth District received 4.19% of the vote. As noted, the LMN candidate for state auditor received 5.28% of the statewide vote, thus barely crossing the five-percent threshold in a down-ballot statewide race and qualifying the party for “major political party” status under state law. …

Even if the death of a Republican or Democratic-Farmer-Labor candidate could qualify as an exigent circumstance that would allow the State to cancel an election and trigger a vacancy in office, we think it unlikely that the rationale would extend to the death of a third-party candidate from a party with the modest electoral strength exhibited to date by the Legal Marijuana Now Party in Minnesota. Voters who wish to show support for the agenda of the LMN Party may still cast a vote for the decedent. But it is unlikely that federal law allows Minnesota to cancel the election on account of candidate Weeks’s death and to select a new date in February 2021 to fill a vacancy caused by the cancellation….

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/37TmiOH
via IFTTT

“Conversations over the Dinner Table That Incite Hatred Must Be Prosecuted …, the Justice Secretary Has Said”

From The Times (London) (Mark McLaughlin):

Conversations over the dinner table that incite hatred must be prosecuted under Scotland’s hate crime law, the justice secretary has said.

Journalists and theatre directors should also face the courts if their work is deemed to deliberately stoke up prejudice, Humza Yousaf [the Secretary for Justice for Scotland] said.

The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill … will introduce an offence of stirring-up of hatred against people with protected characteristics, including disability, sexual orientation and age….

Mr Yousaf … told the Scottish parliament’s justice committee that children, family and house guests must be protected from hate speech…. “Are we comfortable giving a defence to somebody whose behaviour is threatening or abusive which is intentionally stirring up hatred against, for example, Muslims? Are we saying that that is justified because that is in the home? … If your intention was to stir up hatred against Jews … then I think that deserves criminal sanction.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3oEE9i7
via IFTTT

“Conversations over the Dinner Table That Incite Hatred Must Be Prosecuted …, the Justice Secretary Has Said”

From The Times (London) (Mark McLaughlin):

Conversations over the dinner table that incite hatred must be prosecuted under Scotland’s hate crime law, the justice secretary has said.

Journalists and theatre directors should also face the courts if their work is deemed to deliberately stoke up prejudice, Humza Yousaf [the Secretary for Justice for Scotland] said.

The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill … will introduce an offence of stirring-up of hatred against people with protected characteristics, including disability, sexual orientation and age….

Mr Yousaf … told the Scottish parliament’s justice committee that children, family and house guests must be protected from hate speech…. “Are we comfortable giving a defence to somebody whose behaviour is threatening or abusive which is intentionally stirring up hatred against, for example, Muslims? Are we saying that that is justified because that is in the home? … If your intention was to stir up hatred against Jews … then I think that deserves criminal sanction.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3oEE9i7
via IFTTT