[EL] ELB News and Commentary 10/2/14
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Wed Oct 1 21:11:50 PDT 2014
The Challenging #SCOTUS Argument of Voting Rights Advocates on
Last-Minute Election Changes <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66196>
Posted onOctober 1, 2014 7:34 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66196>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
If, as expected,
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/us/2-new-limits-on-voting-in-north-carolina-are-rejected-by-us-court.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0> challengers
to WI voter id law go to the Supreme Court seeking to stop the immediate
use of Wisconsin's new voting law for the election coming up in a few
weeks, I expect their main argument to be not about the merits of the
voting rights challenge but instead about the danger of changing
election rules midstream. But that argument may come back to bite the
challengers in the North Carolina and Texas cases should it come to that.
As Iexplained <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65804>, in In Purcell v.
Gonzalez, a 2006 case, the Supreme Court said:
Faced with an application to enjoin operation of
voter identification procedures just weeks before an election,
the Court of Appeals was required to weigh, in addition to the harms
attendant upon issuance or nonissuance of an injunction,
considerations specific to election cases and its own institutional
procedures. Court orders affecting elections, especially conflicting
orders, can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent
incentive to remain away from the polls. As an election draws
closer, that risk will increase.
For reasons I've flaggedhere
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65563>, implementing voter id in
Wisconsin at the last minute is likely
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65399> to cause electoral
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65382> chaos---a point
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65549> which should be compelling
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/opinion/electoral-chaos-in-wisconsin.html?ref=opinion&_r=0>
regardless of where you stand on the actual merits of WI implementing
its voter id law in an organized way
<http://www.thenation.com/blog/181604/major-blow-voting-rights-wisconsin>.
But that same principle about not changing election rules close to the
election hurts those who support today's 4th Circuit ruling, a ruling
which puts some of North Carolina's voting rules on hold just weeks
before the election. This was the key argument of the dissenting
(Democratic-appointed) judge in the case. And then there'sthis
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66178> statement from a key North
Carolina election official : "We are concerned that changes so close to
the election may contribute to voter confusion," said N.C. State Board
of Elections Executive Director Kim Westbrook Strach. "More than 4
million voter guides have gone to the public with information contrary
to today's decision."
Further, if, as expected, a federal judge bars Texas's voter id law for
use in this election, this will be a big change. The law was used in the
primary, and everyone has been proceeding with the law in effect.
So how to argue that changing the rules midstream is a wrong in
Wisconsin, but is okay in NC (and possibly Texas)? Here is one
potentially winning argument.
In the Wisconsin case, the new id law threatens to disenfranchise
voters. Indeed, there is undisputed evidence in the court below that
rolling out the election changes in the last few weeks will cause
actual disenfranchisement. This is not the case in NC (or Texas), where
presumably making voting easier does not threaten disenfranchisement.
(This is what the 4th Circuit majority referred to as the rules
establishing a "safety net.") If we value voting rights highly enough,
the risk of disenfranchisement should matter the most in applying
the/Purcell/rule.
Further, the potential for voter confusion and keeping voters away from
the polls is greater in cases where new rules are implemented
haphazardly than when new rules are put on hold and older rules restored.
A counterargument to the claim that disenfranchisement is all that
matters is that/all/changes in election rules can confuse voters, and
the new rule change in NC threatens to upset procedures which have been
put in place and interfere with the orderly conduct of elections by
North Carolina election officials.
It will be interesting to watch how these arguments develop.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66196&title=The%20Challenging%20%23SCOTUS%20Argument%20of%20Voting%20Rights%20Advocates%20on%20Last-Minute%20Election%20Changes&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
"2 New Limits on Voting in North Carolina Are Rejected by U.S.
Court" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66194>
Posted onOctober 1, 2014 7:09 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66194>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT reports
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/us/2-new-limits-on-voting-in-north-carolina-are-rejected-by-us-court.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0>.
My earlier analysis of this ruling ishere
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66138>. See also my Race or Party? How
Courts Should Think About Republican Efforts to Make it Harder to Vote
in North Carolina and Elsewhere
<http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/01/race-or-party-how-courts-should-think-about-republican-efforts-to-make-it-harder-to-vote-in-north-carolina-and-elsewhere/>,
127 /Harvard Law Review Forum/ 58 (2014)
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66194&title=%E2%80%9C2%20New%20Limits%20on%20Voting%20in%20North%20Carolina%20Are%20Rejected%20by%20U.S.%20Court%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
"Rigging the Game for Wisconsin's Voter ID Supporters"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66192>
Posted onOctober 1, 2014 2:58 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66192>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Jon Sherman blogs
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-sherman/rigging-the-game-for-wisc_b_5916668.html>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66192&title=%E2%80%9CRigging%20the%20Game%20for%20Wisconsin%E2%80%99s%20Voter%20ID%20Supporters%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
NC Gov. McCrory Says NC Going to SCOTUS in Voting Case
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66190>
Posted onOctober 1, 2014 2:34 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66190>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
News and Observer:
<http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/10/01/4198265/us-appeals-court-blocks-two-provisions.html?sp=/99/102/>
Gov. Pat McCrory also announced plans to appeal the reinstatement of
the two provisions to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I am pleased that the major parts of this popular and common sense
bill were left intact and apply to the upcoming election," McCrory
said in a statement. "I have instructed our attorneys to appeal to
the Supreme Court so that the two provisions rejected today can
apply in the future and protect the integrity of our elections."
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66190&title=NC%20Gov.%20McCrory%20Says%20NC%20Going%20to%20SCOTUS%20in%20Voting%20Case&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
"Vote-Restriction Laws Line Up for Supreme Court Review"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66188>
Posted onOctober 1, 2014 2:25 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66188>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Marcia Coyle reports
<http://www.nationallawjournal.com/supremecourtbrief/home/id=1202672039145/VoteRestriction-Laws-Line-Up-for-Supreme-Court-Review?mcode=1202615432992&curindex=0&back=NLJ>for
NLJ.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66188&title=%E2%80%9CVote-Restriction%20Laws%20Line%20Up%20for%20Supreme%20Court%20Review%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
"Phoning It In and Failing to Show: The Story of the 2014 House
Primaries" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66186>
Posted onOctober 1, 2014 2:19 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66186>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
New Brookings report
<http://www.brookings.edu/%7E/media/research/files/reports/2014/09/30%20candidates%20voters%20primaries%20lawrence%20shapiro/primaries_lawrence_shapiro>by
Jill Lawrence and Walter Shapiro.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66186&title=%E2%80%9CPhoning%20It%20In%20and%20Failing%20to%20Show%3A%20The%20%20Story%20of%20the%202014%20House%20Primaries%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inpolitical parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,primaries
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
Irony Dept: Republicans Go After Dem. Election Official for Purging
Voter (AG Candidate) Too Close to the Election
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66184>
Posted onOctober 1, 2014 2:14 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66184>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
This from the RNLA is too delicious
<http://thereplawyer.blogspot.com/2014/10/rnla-responds-to-dirty-tricks-by.html?spref=tw>.
Usually it is Democrats fighting a last minute voter purge under the NVRA.
My understanding of these provisions is not deep, but my impression is
that the NVRA only stops large, wholesale voter purges and not the
individual removal of ineligible rolls for particular reasons, but if my
understanding is incorrect please let me know. In any case, whether or
not it violates the NVRA, there is a real risk of partisan election
officials monkeying with voter registration (and other) rules for
political gain.
This is why we need nonpartisan election administration.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66184&title=Irony%20Dept%3A%20Republicans%20Go%20After%20Dem.%20Election%20Official%20for%20Purging%20Voter%20%28AG%20Candidate%29%20Too%20Close%20to%20the%20Election&description=>
Posted inNVRA (motor voter) <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>
"The Primaries Project: Where's the Money Coming From?"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66182>
Posted onOctober 1, 2014 1:44 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66182>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Elaine Karmack blogs
<http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2014/10/01-primaries-project-where-is-the-money-coming-from-kamarck>at
Brookings.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66182&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Primaries%20Project%3A%20Where%E2%80%99s%20the%20Money%20Coming%20From%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
It's Over in #KSSEN Litigation <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66180>
Posted onOctober 1, 2014 1:36 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66180>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Brian Lowry <https://twitter.com/BryanLowry3/status/517411514039689217>:
"After court ruling Kobach directs counties to print ballots. It's
official: no Democrat in#KSSen
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/KSSen?src=hash>race.#kseln
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/kseln?src=hash>"
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66180&title=It%E2%80%99s%20Over%20in%20%23KSSEN%20Litigation&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
NC to Appeal to #SCOTUS in Voting Cutbacks Case as Soon as Tomorrow
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66178>
Posted onOctober 1, 2014 1:26 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66178>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
So reports
<http://www.thecharlottepost.com/news/2014/10/01/local/court-splits-on-nc-election-law/>the
Charlotte Post. I expect this to get major play on the Purcell issue
about changing election rules just before the election:
"We are concerned that changes so close to the election may
contribute to voter confusion," said N.C. State Board of Elections
Executive Director Kim Westbrook Strach. "More than 4 million voter
guides have gone to the public with information contrary to today's
decision."
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66178&title=NC%20to%20Appeal%20to%20%23SCOTUS%20in%20Voting%20Cutbacks%20Case%20as%20Soon%20as%20Tomorrow&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
"WyLiberty Arguments End Political Inquisition in Texas"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66176>
Posted onOctober 1, 2014 1:15 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66176>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Press release.
<http://wyliberty.org/feature/wyliberty-arguments-end-political-inquisition-in-texas/#nuS4Q>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66176&title=%E2%80%9CWyLiberty%20Arguments%20End%20Political%20Inquisition%20in%20Texas%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,chicanery
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
"Outside groups, parties spend millions on N.C. turnout"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66174>
Posted onOctober 1, 2014 1:15 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66174>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
USA Today reports
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/01/outside-groups-wage-turnout-battle-in-north-carolina-senate-race/16419277/>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66174&title=%E2%80%9COutside%20groups%2C%20parties%20spend%20millions%20on%20N.C.%20turnout%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
Supreme Court Orders Coming 9:30 AM Eastern Thursday
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66172>
Posted onOctober 1, 2014 12:26 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66172>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
This could include a grant (or denial) in same sex marriage cases.
It is nice the Court gave us some breathing room with all the election
law cases coming down the last few days.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66172&title=Supreme%20Court%20Orders%20Coming%209%3A30%20AM%20Eastern%20Thursday&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
"Voting Rights Victory in North Carolina"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66169>
Posted onOctober 1, 2014 12:09 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66169>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ari Berman blogs
<http://www.thenation.com/blog/181831/voting-rights-victory-north-carolina#>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66169&title=%E2%80%9CVoting%20Rights%20Victory%20in%20North%20Carolina%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
And in West Virginia [corrected], Republicans Fighting to Name
Replacement Candidate in House of Delegates Race
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66167>
Posted onOctober 1, 2014 12:06 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66167>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
See here.
<http://wvrecord.com/news/269494-republicans-file-complaint-over-kanawha-delegate-ballot-spot>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66167&title=And%20in%20West%20Virginia%20%5Bcorrected%5D%2C%20Republicans%20Fighting%20to%20Name%20Replacement%20Candidate%20in%20House%20of%20Delegates%20Race&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141001/ff709b71/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141001/ff709b71/attachment.png>
View list directory