PROFESSOR HASEN
ELECTION LAW FINAL EXAMINATION, SPRING 2008
PART 1 - 120 MINUTES
INSTRUCTIONS
This examination consists of two parts. Part 1 is an open book and open note essay
examination; any written materials are allowed. It is worth 2/3 of your final grade in this
class. You will have 2 hours to complete this part.
When Part 1 ends, there will be a 10 minute exit break, to be followed by Part 2, a
closed book and closed note multiple choice examination worth 1/3 of your final grade in
this class. You will have 1 hour to complete Part 2.
If you feel any additional facts are required, indicate what facts, explain why they
are important, and make reasonable assumptions. Good luck!
Page 1 of 6
ELECTION LAW
PROFESSOR HASEN
SPRING 2008
Question 1
(60 minutes)
The state of Pacifica, a state covered under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act,
passed a redistricting plan for its 10 congressional seats in 2001 that was precleared by
the Department of Justice. The plan contained a majority-minority district (District 1) in
which 60% of the citizen voting age population was African-American and a second
majority-minority district (District 2) in which 52% of the citizen voting age population
(and 60% of the voting age population—including non-citizens) was Latino and 20%
was African-American. District 1 was represented by an African-American Democrat
and District 2 was represented by a Latino Democrat. White Democrats were elected
from two other congressional districts, and White Republicans from the remaining six
congressional districts. Republicans make up 65% of voters in the state.
Approximately 90% of African-Americans and 70% of Latinos registered to vote in the
state are Democrats; the remainder are Republicans.
In 2006, after state legislative elections, Democrats took control of the state house
and engaged in a mid-decade redistricting of these congressional seats. Under the
plan, all districts have exactly equal populations. In addition it has the following notable
changes from the 2001 plan:

The African-American population of District 1 was reduced from 60% AfricanAmerican to 45% African-American, but political scientists believe the AfricanAmerican incumbent legislator would likely be reelected under the new districting
plan thanks to help from cross-over White Democratic voters.

In District 2, the Latino citizen voting age population was reduced to 40% (just
over 50% of the voting age population) and the African-American citizen voting
age population reduced to 8%. Political scientists believe there is an even
chance that this district will re-elect the Latino incumbent or a White Democratic
challenger.

District 3, which has a Republican incumbent, was redrawn substantially to
include various Democratic constituencies and minority populations across the
state, including many minority voters now removed from Districts 1 and 2. It is
the longest district in the state measured from one end to the other, and its
boundaries cut across many city and county borders as well as natural
boundaries such as rivers. Political scientists believe this district will likely
choose a Democratic challenger over the Republican incumbent, bringing the
likely total number of Democratic congressional seats in the state to five. It is not
clear whether the Democrat likely to be elected will be the choice of minority
voters.
Page 2 of 6 pages
ELECTION LAW

PROFESSOR HASEN
SPRING 2008
The remaining districts are substantially the same from the 2001 plan. Overall,
under this plan Democrats are likely to pick up one additional seat, creating a
congressional delegation of 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans.
A.
The state of Pacifica applies for preclearance of the 2006 congressional
redistricting plan with the Justice Department. Should the Justice
Department grant preclearance? Why or why not?
B.
For purposes of this subpart only, assume that the Justice Department
has precleared the 2006 Pacifica law. A diverse group of Pacifica voters
challenges the new districting plan under applicable provisions of the
United States Constitution and under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act,
raising all potential claims. What result? Explain. Assume the voters have
standing.
QUESTION 2 BEGINS ON THE NEXT PAGE
Page 3 of 6 pages
ELECTION LAW
PROFESSOR HASEN
SPRING 2008
Question 2
(60 minutes)
Voters in the state of Pacifica pass an initiative, the "Clean Money for Pacifica
Act" ("CMP Act"). The initiative has a preamble, three substantive provisions, and a
severability clause:
Preamble
The People of the State of Pacifica believe money plays too much of a
role in politics. The true solution to leveling the playing field and eliminating
corruption is a clean money public financing system. The system should be
strong enough so that a candidate would have to think twice before opting out
of the system.
For those candidates who still choose to opt out, contribution limits
need to be lower. Pacifica has long limited contributions from individuals to
candidates for state office and committees to $5,000 per individual per election.
But these limits are way too high.
Millionaire candidates also get an unfair advantage in elections. When
Millionaires spend their own sums, they can drown out the speech of other
candidates. This must be stopped. And they should have to tell the public
about every penny they spend when they spend it.
Accordingly, the People of Pacifica hereby enact these provisions:
Provision 1 – Clean Money Public Financing
Any candidate for state office (state house, state senate, or statewide offices of
governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general) may choose to accept
public financing as a “clean money” candidate. Participating candidates may
collect no private contributions or spend any money beyond that provided by
the state.
To qualify for public financing, a candidate must collect a number of qualifying
$5 contributions from voters in his or her district or electoral jurisdiction. Upon
collecting the signatures and turning the signatures and qualifying contributions
over to the state, the candidate will be entitled to public financing. The amounts
are set by the following schedule:
Page 4 of 6 pages
ELECTION LAW
PROFESSOR HASEN
SPRING 2008
Candidate
Office
Number of
Qualifying
Contributions
Public Financing
in Primary
Public Financing
in General Election
House
100
$50,000
$100,000
Senate
200
$100,000
$200,000
Statewide
office
500
$500,000
$1,000,000
When a participating candidate faces a self-financed opponent who spends his
or her own funds in excess of the amounts awarded to the participating
candidate, the participating candidate will receive a 2:1 match of that excess
funding, up to five times the normal amount of public financing. Thus, for
example, if a self-financed House candidate spends $300,000 on her House
race in the general election, the excess $200,000 will be matched on a 2:1
basis, giving the clean money candidate a total of $500,000 in public
financing—the initial $100,000 grant plus $400,000 in matching funds.
Provision 2 –Limitation on Campaign Contributions
No person, corporation, association, or political party may contribute to a
candidate more than $500 to a candidate for the state House, $750 to a
candidate for the state Senate, and $800 to a candidate for statewide office per
two-year election period. Self-financed candidates may contribute in excess of
these amounts to their own candidate committees. Parties and political
committees may accept no more than $500 from any individual during the twoyear election period for election-related activities.
Provision 3 – Reporting by Self-Financed Candidates
In addition to existing reporting requirements, any candidate who spends in
excess of the amounts set forth above for public-financed candidates from his
or her personal funds shall file a report with state election officials within 24
hours of such spending. Thereafter, the self-funding candidate must file a
report of each additional item of spending within 24 hours of each such
expenditure for the duration of the campaign.
Page 5 of 6 pages
ELECTION LAW
PROFESSOR HASEN
SPRING 2008
Severability Clause
In the event a court of competent jurisdiction strikes down any provision (or part
of any provision) of this Act as unconstitutional, the remainder of the Act shall
be enforced as though the Act were written without the unconstitutional
provision (or part of any provision).
The Pacifica State Supreme Court upholds the entire CMP Act as constitutional
against First Amendment challenge brought by a wide array of plaintiffs. The case goes
to the U.S. Supreme Court. Assume there are no standing problems for challenging the
provisions. Assume as well that the Act can survive single subject challenge under
Pacifica law.
Can the CMP survive a First Amendment challenge? Explain. Be sure to evaluate the
constitutionality of all the provisions of the act.
END OF PART 1
Page 6 of 6 pages