<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly &#187; Elections</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nclawyersweekly.com/category/opinion-digest/elections/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 22:56:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Elections – ‘Stand by Your Ad’ – Required Disclaimers – Airtime &amp; Production – Tu Quoque Defense&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/11/20/elections-stand-by-your-ad-required-disclaimers-airtime-production-tu-quoque-defense/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/11/20/elections-stand-by-your-ad-required-disclaimers-airtime-production-tu-quoque-defense/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:50:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tu Quoque Defense]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=68036</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Friends of Joe Sam Queen v. Ralph Hise for NC Senate</em> In order to comply with the “Stand by Your Ad” Act, a candidate must disclose not only who paid for his ad’s airtime, but also who paid for its production.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/11/20/elections-stand-by-your-ad-required-disclaimers-airtime-production-tu-quoque-defense/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Elections &#8211;  Fundraising – Corporate Contributions – Donor Recruitment – Reimbursement&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/07/09/elections-fundraising-corporate-contributions-donor-recruitment-reimbursement/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/07/09/elections-fundraising-corporate-contributions-donor-recruitment-reimbursement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2012 16:18:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate Contributions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Donor Recruitment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fundraising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reimbursement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=63894</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>U.S. v. Danielczyk</em>  In this prosecution of two corporate executives for an alleged scheme of recruiting donors and reimbursing their contributions to Hillary Clinton’s 2006 and 2008 Senate and Presidential Campaigns, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses dismissal of a charge of corporation contributions in violation of 2 U.S.C. § 441b(a).]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/07/09/elections-fundraising-corporate-contributions-donor-recruitment-reimbursement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Elections &#8211; Civil Rights &#8212; National Voter Registration Act – Application Disclosure&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/06/21/elections-civil-rights-national-voter-registration-act-application-disclosure/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/06/21/elections-civil-rights-national-voter-registration-act-application-disclosure/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:28:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Application Disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Voter Registration Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=63366</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Project Vote/Voting for America Inc. v. Long</em> Virginia election officials violated the National Voter Registration Act by refusing to disclose completed voter registration applications with voters’ Social Security numbers redacted; the 4th Circuit affirms a district court decision that Section 8(i)(L) of the NVRA does apply to such applications and defendants violated the NVRA.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/06/21/elections-civil-rights-national-voter-registration-act-application-disclosure/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Elections &#8211; Advocacy Group – FEC Regulation – Constitutional – Vagueness Challenge &#8212; PAC Disclosures – ‘Major Purpose’ Test&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/06/21/elections-advocacy-group-fec-regulation-constitutional-vagueness-challenge-pac-disclosures-major-purpose-test/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/06/21/elections-advocacy-group-fec-regulation-constitutional-vagueness-challenge-pac-disclosures-major-purpose-test/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:26:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Advocacy Group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FEC Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PAC Disclosures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vagueness Challenge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[‘Major Purpose’ Test]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=63364</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>The Real Truth About Abortion Inc. v. FEC</em> Appellant, a Virginia nonprofit group called “The Real Truth About Abortion Inc.,” loses its constitutional challenge to a regulation of the Federal Election Commission that appellant says is unconstitutionally vague with regard to whether “Real Truth” has to make disclosures as a “political action committee.”]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/06/21/elections-advocacy-group-fec-regulation-constitutional-vagueness-challenge-pac-disclosures-major-purpose-test/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Elections &#8211; Judges – Public Finance – Constitutional – First Amendment&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/05/24/elections-judges-public-finance-constitutional-first-amendment/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/05/24/elections-judges-public-finance-constitutional-first-amendment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 14:37:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. D.C. Eastern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judges]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Finance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=62744</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>North Carolina Right to Life Political Action Committee v. Leake</em> Defendants have failed to distinguish North Carolina’s matching funds scheme for judicial elections from the scheme which was declared unconstitutional in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 131 S. Ct. 2806 (2011). Other than the state interests rejected in Bennett, defendants have failed to come forward with compelling state interests to justify the scheme.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/05/24/elections-judges-public-finance-constitutional-first-amendment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Elections &#8211; Civil Rights &#8211; Independent Candidate — Petition Signatures &#8211; Residency Requirement&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/07/14/elections-civil-rights-independent-candidate-%e2%80%94-petition-signatures-residency-requirement/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/07/14/elections-civil-rights-independent-candidate-%e2%80%94-petition-signatures-residency-requirement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:15:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Independent Candidate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Petition Signatures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Residency Requirement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=56870</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Lux v. Judd </em>A former independent candidate for Congress wins remand of his challenge to a Virginia statutory requirement that petition signatures in support of his candidacy be witnessed by a resident of the Congressional district; the 4th Circuit says the limited rationale underlying the case relied on by the lower court has been superseded by later Supreme Court cases.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/07/14/elections-civil-rights-independent-candidate-%e2%80%94-petition-signatures-residency-requirement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Elections &#8211; Civil Rights &#8211; S.C. ‘Sore Loser&#8217; Statute&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2010/07/25/elections-civil-rights-sc-%e2%80%98sore-loser-statute/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2010/07/25/elections-civil-rights-sc-%e2%80%98sore-loser-statute/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:31:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[S.C. 'Sore Loser' Statute]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=50234</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[S.C. Green Party v. S.C. State Election Comm&#8217;n. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-01-0701, 14 pp.) (Keenan, J.) No. 09-1915, July 20, 2010; USDC at Columbia, S.C. (Currie, J.) 4th Cir. Holding: Although South Carolina&#8217;s &#8220;sore loser&#8221; statute operated to deprive the Green Party of its preferred candidate on the general ballot, after this same candidate lost [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2010/07/25/elections-civil-rights-sc-%e2%80%98sore-loser-statute/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Elections &#8211; Constitutional &#8211;Political Parties &#8211;2 Percent Retention Requirement&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/10/26/elections-constitutional-political-parties-2-percent-retention-requirement/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/10/26/elections-constitutional-political-parties-2-percent-retention-requirement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dmc-admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/10/26/elections-constitutional-political-parties-2-percent-retention-requirement/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Libertarian Party v. State. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-07-0951, 31 pp.) (John C. Martin, J.) Appealed from Wake County Superior Court. (Robert H. Hobgood, J.) N.C. App. Holding: North Carolina&#8217;s 2 percent signature requirement for a party to be recognized in an election/on a ballot is does not violate the North Carolina Constitution. Facts The plaintiff [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/10/26/elections-constitutional-political-parties-2-percent-retention-requirement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Elections &#8211; Judges &#8211;Constitutional &#8211;Equal Protection &#8211;Intermediate Review&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/09/07/elections-judges-constitutional-equal-protection-intermediate-review/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/09/07/elections-judges-constitutional-equal-protection-intermediate-review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2009 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dmc-admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/09/07/elections-judges-constitutional-equal-protection-intermediate-review/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Blankenship v. Bartlett. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-06-0795, 27 pp.) (Edward Thomas Brady, J.) (Patricia Timmons-Goodson, J., joined by Sarah Parker, Ch.J. &#38; Robin E. Hudson, J., dissenting) From the Court of Appeals. N.C. S. Ct. Holding: The state must be given a chance to show significant interests that justify the legislature&#8217;s subdivision within Judicial District [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/09/07/elections-judges-constitutional-equal-protection-intermediate-review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Elections &#8211; Judges &#8211; Campaign Funds &#8211; Public Financing &#8211; Combined TV Ad&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/08/10/elections-judges-campaign-funds-public-financing-combined-tv-ad/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/08/10/elections-judges-campaign-funds-public-financing-combined-tv-ad/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dmc-admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/08/10/elections-judges-campaign-funds-public-financing-combined-tv-ad/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Calabria v. North Carolina State Board of Elections. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-07-0710, 16 pp.) (John C. Martin, Ch.J.) Appealed from Wake County Superior Court. (James C. Spencer Jr., J.) N.C. App. Holding: Where the election for a seat on the N.C. Supreme Court has already been certified and plaintiff&#8217;s opponent has been seated as a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/08/10/elections-judges-campaign-funds-public-financing-combined-tv-ad/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
