MENU

2014 Annual Western Chapters Conference

The Federalist Society

Start : Saturday, January 25, 2014 10:00 AM

End : Saturday, January 25, 2014 04:00 PM

Location:
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
40 Presidential Drive
(In the Presidential Learning Center)
Simi Valley, CA 93065

Description:

2014 ANNUAL WESTERN CHAPTERS CONFERENCE
The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Saturday, January 25, 2014
10:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

Ronald Reagan Presidential Library

Agenda:

Panel One: Has the United States Supreme Court killed California’s initiative process or helped check its abuses? - Audio
10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.

This panel will focus on what effect the United States Supreme Court’s holding that initiative proponents lack standing to defend initiatives that the Governor and Attorney General will not defend will have on California’s initiative process in general. What are the pros and cons of the initiative process as a matter of public policy? Do government lawyers (and politicians) have an ethical obligation to defend laws they do not agree with, especially those passed via citizen initiative?

  • Rick Hasen, Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science, University of California, Irvine.
  • Dan Kolkey, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
  • Justin Levitt, Loyola Marymount University
  • Kenneth Miller, Claremont McKenna, and Author, Direct Democracy and the Courts
  • Moderator: Judge Sandra Ikuta, U. S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit

Luncheon Address: An Interview with Former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese - Audio
12:15 p.m. – 2:15 p.m.

  • Edwin Meese III, Former U.S. Attorney General
  • Interviewer: Hon. Carlos T. Bea, United States Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit

Panel Two: How do we balance disclosure with maintaining the privacy of participants in contentious issues? - Audio
2:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Supporters of Proposition 8 have invoked NAACP v. Alabama to support their claims for anonymity, citing fears of intimidation and discrimination because of their opposition to same-sex marriage. How much transparency is needed when it comes to donors and supporters of contentious political issues? Is a signature on a petition deserving of a different degree of privacy than a financial contribution? Do different levels of support deserve different degrees of scrutiny? Or, as even Justice Scalia declared in oral arguments in Doe vs. Reed, is a certain amount of “civic courage” needed when taking a public stand on an issue? Do threats of harassment or even violence trump the need for transparency and disclosure? What are the repercussions for the First Amendment and direct democracy? How much privacy should be offered in ballot measure disclosure systems?

  • Paul Avelar, Institute for Justice
  • Manny Klausner, Reason Foundation
  • Peter Scheer, First Amendment Coalition
  • Hans von Spakovsky, The Heritage Foundation
  • Moderator: Hon. Carolyn Kuhl, Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles

[Return to the Multimedia menu]